Seeker
-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Seeker
-
-
That’s a hard theory to understand. We’re all born with the exact same free will, we’re all tabula rasa, and yet some choose to be good while others bad. How can the exact same identity come to two different conclusions except by indeterminacy? And if it is a matter of indeterminacy, how can one be blamed or praised for the outcome?
On the issue of cultural influence, nothing more needs to be said that has not been stated persuasively by others; the nub of the matter is that influences are just that, influences, which man is free to act upon or reject, because he has free will.
On the more important issue of accepting the validity of this crucially important attribute of consciousness, let me stress that context is nearly everything. Every instance of persistent confusion about free will (setting aside cases of outright evasion) depends on an error of context-dropping. A good point to remember is not to make this too complicated: recall that Objectivism holds free will to be axiomatic; it follows that it should be extremely obvious to you, if you hold on to the proper context.
To set the context, begin with an empiral observation gained via introspection: that when you choose to vary your level of focus -- though influenced by various factors, such as this post that you are reading exhorting you to try the experiment -- the ultimate decision is yours, and is, in the applicable context of your mind, free of external control and internal prior restraint. For example, suppose you command yourself to count down from ten, and when you reach zero, to vary your focus at that instant. You count down, and this may influence what happens when you reach zero, but it is not dispositive; you are still free to vary your focus or not, in that instant. The attempt at prior restraint fails; it is not dispositive, nor are external factors, such as sights and sounds. You can repeat the experiment any number of times, and from this generalize that when you choose, you do so free of antecedent conditions in this context. Hence, the choice to focus could have been otherwise.
What about the neurons in your brain, however? Surely, you might think, they must reduce the whole matter to a fatalistically pre-determined outcome, like so many billiard balls. But this commits the critical error of context-dropping. The axiomatic free will validation is a matter of philosophy, unconcerned with neurology. The validation is introspective in nature and depends upon that context. It cannot be denied on the basis of claims arising in other, derivative contexts. To accept that line of argumentation as bearing upon free will would either be attacking a straw man (to disprove a contextless claim that was never made) or to bring to bear evidence irrelevant to the context (because not arising out of introspection). The attempt, now blazingly obvious, to smuggle in the inappropriate premise that neurology is philosophically more fundamental than the axiom of consciousness and the corollary of volition, must be rejected, as a matter of philosophy. Once again, context is (nearly) everything.
So what is the conclusion? That we have free will in the context of our minds (i.e. the context in which free will applies, by definition), and that neurology has not displaced philosophic axioms so as to render the concept of free will invalid. Now, with the argument laid before you, do you accept that man has free will?
-
For some interesting alternatives it's worth checking out some past versions. I found this one especially striking and fitting. I also liked the last version quite a bit.
-
I actually prefer dark backgrounds, but apart from that, I think that the new design presents a perceptual blizzard. The use of non-underlined blue for hyperlinks is non-standard and confusing, especially coupled with dark red non-links of the same size; certain items, like "Our current feature: The Corporation, by Yaron Brook" appear to be links but aren't; the menu bar's strange fade-in/out effects are disorienting, as are the varying font sizes; the uneven and non-hierarchical stacking of sections within columns is essentially arbitrary; the grey column at left is mostly wasted space. If I had to guess, I would say they were going for something along the lines of the Drudge Report, but at least Drudge maintains a simple consistency (black and white, one font, one size, hyperlinks underlined, etc.). Perhaps worst of all, there is no image, apart from a few at the bottom, of Ayn Rand herself on the very website that bears her name. Seeing this site for the first time, the first idea conveyed is: "confusion!". I think that ARI would do well to take this one back to the drawing board.
-
Maybe the way to think of the right vis-a-vis tyranny is that it's a reserve power that we retain just in case it's ever needed, not that we actually foresee needing it. Constitutional history is replete with such examples. The British monarch hasn't denied the Royal Assent to a bill passed by Parliament since 1708, but retains that power nonetheless. No U.S. President has ever been removed from office by impeachment and conviction, yet that power certainly exists, though its use unforeseen. The point being that in matters of constitutional provisions, some of which account for outlying contingencies, it would be mistaken to demand that their ongoing justification depend upon foreseeable events. It's enough that as a general proposition, the people ought to retain the power to throw off tyrannical government, which necessitates the right to keep and carry guns.
-
The answer is that Holmes was wrong. The test of truth is reality, not popularity. As to why Objectivism isn't more popular than it is, I will leave that to others who are better informed (i.e. at all) on the subject; I will simply note that Objectivism is radical, large in scope (i.e. a complete philosophy), and intellectually demanding, none of which comports with the demands of popularity given the present culture.
-
For a really cogent answer, see Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pages 30-33.
For a much less articulate answer, here I go. There are two answers (depending on the type of god being referred to). Typically, "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian god, which cannot exist because the very concept is self-contradictory. For a thing to exist, it must possess a specific identity. By contrast, the JudeoChristian god is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and everywhere all at once, i.e. is without limit, thus possessing no specific identity at all, i.e. is non-existent. At this point you can expect your opponents to fall back on some variant of the "greek God", by saying that God does indeed possess a specific identity and exists somewhere in the universe but nonetheless chooses to hide himself from our detection. The answer to this is that the assertion of that god's existence demands sensory evidence, or is to be dismissed as arbitrary. It is not a matter of disproving that god's existence, it is a matter of dismissing the very assertion out of hand.
-
I like this idea too, but I do not hold out much hope for it, especially in my country.
Nearly all real power in the Canadian Parliamentary system is concentrated in the Prime Ministers Office. Individual Members of the parties are little more than parrots and are completely 'whipped' in the House of Commons. Independents are very, very rarely elected and then only in response to a single issue and when they are they are a single lone vote in a parliament of 308 MP's and a Senate of 105.
As I am rather unfamiliar with the Canadian system, a question I have is how is leadership exercised? In the American separation of powers, the structure of the executive (vested in a single person elected with a separate mandate from the legislature) is one such mechanism, which is typically duplicated at the state and local levels - this is a practical means for exercising leadership through the "bully pulpit". In Westminster systems, that structural advantage is nominally held by the monarch, but is not exercised by her in reality, instead belonging to the prime minister who is chosen by the majority party in the Commons (and I gather that this is where the practical problems come in as you say). I am interested in exploring how radical leadership could work in such a system, but perhaps this is getting slightly off-topic for this discussion. At a minimum though I would encourage more thinking and research to consider whether and how that particular disadvantage might be overcome.
-
This is a change of context. The original topic had to do with going somewhere and founding a new and specifically Objectivist nation. I think there is absolutely no point in even considering such an action unless there is a very well-developed blueprint for what such a government and nation would look like. That goes way beyond generalities like 'eliminating government programs' and 'getting the government out of people's way'. That isn't a political program, it's a pair of libertarian bromides.
I stand by my view that, as far as the original stated goal of establishing a new Objectivist nation is concerned, the "time for action" is most emphatically not now.
Actually, we were encouraged to "think outside the box", which in this context includes considering working within the present system to achieve the desired outcome gradually. Stepwise improvement is a means by which to one day implement a proper government. It enables us to get started making concrete improvements that we know to be correct, while giving time for "a lot of abstract thinking and research that needs to be done in the political science and philosophy of law spaces" so that the best possible government can one day be realized. To reiterate, therefore, and in specific reference to the original topic: the time for action is now.
-
My point is that there is a lot of abstract thinking and research that needs to be done in the political science and philosophy of law spaces before any kind of "where shall we go" discussion can be even minimally worthwhile.
In the political realm, the order of the day is not achieving an other-worldly perfection; significant improvement is worthwhile enough. It doesn't require genius to do something as simple as eliminate government programs and get the government out of people's way. Yes, there are spaces to work on. There will always be spaces to work on. There will always be plenty of work for the intellectuals to do. Part of their responsibility will be to help the politicians do their jobs properly. It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that discussion of this type is not even minimally worthwhile. The possibility of greater freedom exists today. We should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The time for action is now.
-
I just want to clarify that I'm referring to an Objectivist government as an easy reference. Just as no art can be called Objectivist art no government can be said to be Objectivist. It can/may be inspired by it, adhere to the principals of the political philosophy of it but it can not be Objectivist.
Agreed. I used it as a convenient shorthand for a government that would adhere to the political philosophy of Objectivism, but "proper government" is perhaps a more appropriate term.
-
Other than the prospect of electing Objectivist governments in friendly environments at the local level, there is also the possibility of running for political office against the tide - especially for executive offices - and using the focus of election campaigns as a vehicle to spread Objectivist principles. You'd need time and money to do that so if you have the time and know a few rich folks you could convince to support you, that would be a place to start. The goal is to persuade people and win elections.
This is not premature. ARI's Objectivist Academic Center seeks to "help develop the university professors, writers, journalists and politicians who will uphold reason in the culture." (emphasis mine) So it's officially on the table: we're looking for politicians. Now the question is, can we find and elect any? If you want something concrete and political, a real plan to embrace right now, set electing an Objectivist politician to public office as your goal.
-
No, this is not from The Onion. This is being reported by that paragon of objective journalism known as The Associated Press.
Everything seemingly is spinning out of control
WASHINGTON - Is everything spinning out of control?Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.
-
Newt Gingrich is possibly the greatest Republican disappointment in my lifetime -- a man who could have shut down the government's nonessential functions and made it stick for a while, or at least eliminated some unnecessary departments. Instead he caved to Bill Clinton politically and never made any cogent moves towards reducing the size of government. His Balanced Budget Act of 1997 disastrously claimed to have balanced the budget when in fact, economic growth balanced the budget faster than Congress, with its "Balanced Budget Act", could increase spending. There was never any coherent limited-government leadership, only a pretense. Newt Gingrich was finally hoisted by his own petard with an ethical scandal and since been consigned to selling books and making speeches. His petition will undoubtedly help his book sales immeasurably.
The Republicans don't need Newt Gingrich to find their way. He can't even find his own way. This petition is just another example of the false hope that someone like Newt Gingrich provides. What he needs, and everyone needs is a coherent rational philosophy, or it will just be the same disaster, over and over again.
-
A lot more thought has to go into how to implement this kind of idea.
I am curious, not to mention somewhat baffled, by why you ascribe these problems to privatization as such when they can and do occur with publicly-owned roads. As I see it, it's rather like complaining that a private road might have potholes. Well, sure -- and public roads do have potholes, so what does that prove regarding privatization? Boil it down and you have either the owner responsible to a rational consideration, namely, the willingness of actual customers to pay, or to an irrational consideration, namely, the caprice of bureacrats and the power of pull of politicians. Yet for some reason you see vice in private ownership and virtue in public ownership. Why?
I will grant you this much: it is possible that with private roads, some roads -- namely, those for which the customers are unwilling to pay the needed costs -- there will be a few more potholes in them (let's say) than with a public ownership scheme in which the mayor (who happens to live on the road) can exercise his pull. So what? There will be fewer potholes on the roads with the customers who are willing to pay. In a free market the money is going to exactly where it ought to go, and people are getting exactly what they are willing and able to pay for. If that means an extra pothole or two on Mulberry Lane, it means an extra pothole or two on Mulberry Lane. If no one is willing to pay, then maybe it means closing Mulberry Lane. Maybe you live on Mulberry Lane and don't want to pay the costs of upkeep or miss the days when you and your neighbors could enjoy the use of funds from the public treasury for the unearned upkeep of your road, yet for the tiny extra inconvenience of having to actually pay your way, you are now willing to toss out Man's Rights. I just don't get it.
-
Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms
A public school teacher preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators and used a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms, according to a report by independent investigators.Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater also taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom, the report said.
School board members were scheduled to meet Friday afternoon to discuss the findings by consulting firm H.R. On Call Inc., hired by the district to investigate. The report was released Thursday. ...
The report comes one week after a family filed a federal lawsuit in Columbus against Freshwater and the school district, saying Freshwater burned a cross on their child's arm that remained for three or four weeks.
-
This might not seem like such a big deal but what about standardization? We take for granted the standardization of government owned roads. Namely the mileage markers, exits signs, caution signs, traffic signals, stop signs, road width, overpass height limits, load limits, entrance and exit ramp protocol, etc., etc., etc. Would it not be a logistical nightmare to not have a universal standard? Wouldn't private roads all have varying standards based on what suited the owner's needs for that individual road?
Presumably since the purpose of the road is to provide safe passage to motorists, foisting logistical nightmares on them would not be among the owner's needs. Government standardization would not be necessary. A private professional group of civil engineers could provide the necessary standards, and the risk of civil tort damages for negligence would be inducement enough for road owners to follow them.
-
-
Before that argument will fly, you need to show that it is possible, in a capitalist society, for anyone to gain and hold a monopoly on anything without resort to government-sanctioned force.
~Q
It must depend on what the "given area" is. In a small enough area, all that The Anthem has described is well within the right to own property (and thus, in a greater area, is not a monopoly). All that follows is that individuals who cannot afford the price in the given area, cannot use the roads. So what? There's no right to go wherever you please just because you want to. Outside of that area, of course, will be property and roads that the others can afford to use.
Not incidentally, the notions of "upper class", "middle class", and "lower class" are, in my view, thoroughly inadmissible in a rational discussion. Since they have no precise definitions, they are mere appeals to emotions - and the wrong emotions at that (pity, fear, etc.).
-
Well if he fails miserably like some of you all say he will, then people can use his views as an example of what doesn't work.
First we create the problem, then we solve it, eh?
Unfortunately, the choice of a president is not merely an example-setting teaching exercise, but has real-world ramifications. The evidence so far suggests that Obama is an ill-educated, ill-prepared, ill-experienced disaster-in-waiting. For example, we know from the feckless approach of Bill Clinton which culminated in the disaster of 9/11, what the tragic consequences of a weak, foolhardy foreign policy would be, and the evidence suggests that Obama would pursue precisely that course once again. I suppose the thousands who died in the 9/11 attacks also serve as an example of what doesn't work. Apparently, we didn't learn our lesson, did we?
A Professor of mine told me today that only after Republican Presidents do we get a recession, I looked into it and sure enough it has been true so far.Even assuming, arguendo, that this is true, it says absolutely nothing about causality as opposed to mere coincidence; it offers no facts pertaining to the nature of Republican presidents and recessions that would even remotely suggest a causal connection. In other words, your professor's assertion is worthless. I suppose the mediocre education you'll receive will also serve as an example of what doesn't work.
-
What kind of limits did you have in mind? Are you asking me if an individual should be punished for withdrawing his consent from the state that claims sovereignty over him? My understanding of free nations is that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
I think this is actually conflating two very distinct things. An individual is free to not delegate his right of self-defense, but remains answerable to the government should he use force against anyone else (for a cogent explanation of this, see OPAR p. 372). As I see it, this means that a group of anarchists can never properly assert territorial rights to the exclusion of said government; for example, should an anarchist murder a non-seceding member of society within the anarchists' asserted territory, the criminal would remain punishable by the government notwithstanding the territorial assertion.
By contrast, we are here discussing the scenario of a secessionist group seeking to establish its own proper, objective government by right within a sub-territory of an existing government, which must then relinquish said territory. The basic limitation is that secession must be consistent with protecting individual rights. This implies that a new proper government be established; what are the minimum procedural requirements for so doing? By what standards should the prospective new government be judged for adequacy by the old? Are there specific legal requirements? Are the geographic boundaries well-defined and agreed upon? Is there a minimum population size required? Is there adequate provision for the minority that does not want to secede? How would competing secessionist claims over overlapping territories be resolved? Would the new territory be non-continguous or the result of gerrymandering and how would this affect the ability of government(s) to function? The answers to such questions must form the basis of laws governing secession, if secession is to be permitted at all, and there may be good enough reasons for not doing so.
-
Secession, then, is just one additional check on government gone astray.
What limits on secession would you propose to ensure that it would not devolve into anarchy?
-
Whenever the Republicans tamper with the economy and cause a problem it gets blamed on capitalism.
I've seen this argument made a few times; as I see it, the Republican aspect is derivative and secondary, which is to say, non-essential, hence the argument is unpersuasive. Let us examine why. If McCain tampers with the economy and causes a problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. If Obama tampers with the economy and causes a problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. Regardless of who causes the problem, it will get blamed on capitalism. The only distinction, which is derivative and non-essential, is whether the occupant of the White House will share in the blame by his association (rightly or wrongly) with capitalism. The point is that saving capitalism from blame will not result from electing Obama and hence is no reason to vote for Obama.
-
So I'm voting for Obama, if he gets the nomination. Peikoff is still supporting the Democrats, and I agree with him.
You seem to be confusing McCain with a Republican of the sort that would pose a danger. To the contrary, though he ran as a Republican and managed to win that party's nomination (with Huckabee siphoning away the votes of the Christian right), McCain in my estimate is closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. In other words, what we really have is Obama-D and McCain-D. The choice is already between two Democrats in essence, so the Peikoff calculus is inapplicable in the special context of this presidential election. In light of that conclusion I choose the weaker candidate, McCain, i.e. the less likely to lead, persuade, and prevail with his leftist ideas, particularly now that the Democrats control Congress, as they did not in 2006.
-
I think people divide themselves into fundamentally two groups by deciding on their basic orientation to reality. This may be conscious or feeling-based. The two are positive (a sense that life is good, that reality is good, that one is efficacious, etc.) and negative (that life is bad, that reality is bad, that one is weak and ineffectual). Their sense of life and convinced judgment about life is fundamentally one or the other. The enviros do not succeed by appealing with either reason or feelings to the positive group. They succeed by appealing to the negative group. In other words, for the enviros, the approach matters less than having a ready audience of anti-life individuals to appeal to.
As to what our approach ought to be, I see no reason why it ought not incorporate a harmony of a positive sense of life (feeling) and a principled appeal to reason. Whether such appeals will succeed in converting members of the anti-life group is a fundamental decision that each one of them must make individually. It's worth noting that Ayn Rand's work incorporated both sense-of-life and appeals to reason. They are not mutually exclusive.
Free Will Revisited
in Debates
Posted
You have not shown how it is internally inconsistent.
So does mine.
You have not shown in what manner an argument from material causation will not fail on account of context-dropping as I described.
I have given you a process for validation by direct experience that there are no dispositive antecedent conditions, the denial of which amounts to evasion.