Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

airborne

Regulars
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by airborne

  1. Your right, I can't say it is. But buying something more expensive when you know you can get it cheaper at another store is - if the reason is that you don't want to offend the staff by not buying there. Now I think I can articulate a point for 'testing gear'. The job of staff is to help 'potential customers', I would logically assume. Someone coming in with the intention to buy somewhere else is always under a possibility of finding something there which he prefers. This has actually happened to me a few times, without expecting it at all. However, the only problem I see with what I said above is - would it be immoral to test first, because you know that the chance of getting a price match or finding something else you like or setting a deal will not be extremely high. haha I know it sounds crazy, but I'm going in for the abstracts to understand this.
  2. OK. So I don't think I can. This would now mean I buy a product I was unable to test or pay alot more money, which seems like a sacrifice to me. Following though, if someone goes to a luxury car dealership to test out a car he is not even close to being able to afford, is that being immoral? It just doesn't make sense that that would be immoral. If your going to argue that he uses this amount of fuel exactly, and causes $4.39282 in losses then I could also say that the car serves as a great motivator for him to work for it in the future. Also are most people who willingly try out those test-foods that people are made to hand out, with no intention of buying it, immoral?
  3. That's right, but I don't blurt out everything I think/feel to everyone. Maybe I am being immoral if I don't ask for them to match price but if I do, even I come in with the intention of buying somewhere else its not. Man A is moving overseas in 2 days. He's in the mall checking out gadget shops. I don't think it would be immoral for him checking out and testing gear knowing he's going to buy it overseas and I don't think he should walk in there saying "I just want to play with your stuff but I'm moving overseas and I wont buy here ever! so take that!". Apart from taking some of their staff chatting time he hasn't done any damage.
  4. btw this is not a real problem!!! I'm just studying Objectivism and trying to get a better grasp of concepts! Although some of these situations may be less likely, they are still very possible. Lets just assume negotiation does not work. Since this is the objectively defined limit, as to not cause physical injury, my neighbour is therefore allowed to play music at 139Db exactly? What is considered an unnecessary outcry? by what standard? Is disturbing the peace noises over 140Db? or is it a noise level set by measuring the standard Db of 1000 sample people's voices? Is a women reuniting with an old friend from school, screaming and dancing in delight, disturbing the peace and quite of the city? Yes, they do. On their own property. So I cant go claiming a right to peace and quite when I go over to a friends house. I can either leave or stay and suffer the noise. ok, makes sense again... I'm starting to get it here. A does not have the right to keep B awake if B is on his own property. Now.... A can only playing music up to 140Db. Since it is hard to judge by some sort of objective standard what exactly is disruptive... apart from the point where you cause bodily harm to your neighbor. So the solutions would be: Negotiation, which would work in most cases if not then you could build sound proofing for your house or you could move?
  5. So if someone has troubles falling asleep due to psychological problems, do we have to pay for his sleep medicine? I sort of get where your going just something about it I'm not getting. All I know of rights is that it is right to life and therefore no physical coercion. Everything else is not a right. And I'm not trying to be all antsy smartass, which I think is how that came across. Just trying to understand this completely %100.
  6. Regarding using the store as testing grounds I thought about it again and I can give you a reason why its not immoral. Tell me what you think to confirm it with me. I enter with the intention of buying from another store, but I still understand that it is possible I can buy something there. They might have a product that the cheaper store doesn't. Additionally I can always ask for a price match after they let me test the computer. If they refuse, fine. I was doing business. The reason for testing before asking for a price match is because I believe they wont match price, but I definitely would like to be surprised. Would this be a fair argument for it? Also is there any Objective writings on "family". I love my family but I cant really objectively define my love apart from financial support, which I don't really think is the biggest part of it. Especially now that they refuse to pay for everything. I can't tell you why I value my family. All I know is that I do and many times I'll do something for a family member because I feel its right. That's where I am now with the idea of family, feeling and less objectivity.
  7. Your neighbor likes playing loud death metal music which prevents you from sleeping. He does this every night. The sound-waves are entering your private property. Is he violating your private property? I would think not because I understand a violation of private property to be force against you or him physically entering your property. Additionally, it would be impossible to define the limit in an objective manner. What is too loud? What music is appropriate? at what frequency? Would Rationality be on my side here? If so - for the reasons I stated? or otherwise? If not, why? Edit: Thinking about it more, if this is allowed then wouldn't he also be allowed to create a fume exhaust from his mini home factory(for the sake of understanding what the limit is lets just say that he built one in his house) and aim it at your house? Because technically he is not entering your property. Sound and Fumes are both physical particles. If you say that fumes could possibly be dangerous for someone, cant one also say that the death metal music could be psychologically dangerous?
  8. A few examples of some problems and how Objectivism would suggest tackling them. Parents offer to buy you a car. Your just starting university. If you take it things will be alot easier, you can visit friends, drive to work, save time. However, this is not your money. you haven't earned it. Objectivism advocates "independence" so wouldn't it be moral not to accept, and work your ass off for another one? I'm sure you could somehow argue that it is moral to accept. However, what would Howard Roark do? IMO not accept, work his ass off, not see friends, then claim it is in his self-interest. A job requires work experience in a certain field... you know this field very well and feel capable. Is it acceptable to lie on your resume? If your discovered then you wont get the job, but can look for another one. If your not the subject will not be brought up again and you will have the job this would be moral then under Objectivism? Your family is having a big dinner, you know that these big dinners are extremely boring and you hate being there. Do you go? If you don't there will be very offended family members who could feel very unhappy Now this is difficult. I think Objectivism would say 'no' you don't if your not financially Dependant on your family. If you are dependent however, it would be the moral thing for you to go. There is this expensive tech store. You go there *just* to test out the gear but know in advance you will buy the same model at another cheaper store. The expensive tech store staff is under the impression you are actually interested in buying something, this is why they're helping. Is it moral to do this? The cheaper store wont let you test, so you don't know what your getting. Something about this one makes it harder. I don't think its immoral because there may still be the chance that they can convince you to buy something or give you a deal, although this is highly unlikely.
  9. I decided to write this because of a discussion I had in a group re: altruism, and people presented the "prisoner's dilemma" as proof of altruism working. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma So I was shown this Prisoner's "dilemma". Why it is a dilemma, I don't understand. Dilemma seems to imply that the cause of the loss is "selfishness", and the solution "altruism". However, cant one say that their choice was not in their self-interest since it was based on a limited amount of data? Anyway for fun I produced this: The Struggling business dilemma Technology company A Retail store B (yes, this is just as realistic as the prisoner dilemma IMO) A and B are altruistic and pay taxes: A reduces Research&Development and sacrifices future innovation, B is unable to grow due to lack of capital. A and B are selfish and avoid taxes through legal loopholes: A increases its Research&Development creating a new product which B will sell in its expanded stores. Customers will enjoy great new products at cheaper prices. It is quite a dilemma, just like the prisoner's dilemma.
  10. Completely true. I just needed to think about it more... If I evade the consequences and then drift to benefits it must be evasion. but If I acknowledge the risks but believe the benefits will be worth it it would not be evasion. E.g. I go to a job interview at a firm I've always wanted to work for.
  11. http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture25.shtml Right. Makes sense. However, what if I acknowledge that I can loose my job and then think about the benefits? Is this still evasion? Or would it make more sense if said in the following way: I acknowledge that I can loose my job but believe the benefits outweigh the risk. Risk to be caught is minimal and reward will probably be worth it. How does one know one is not engaging in evasion then? Reason I'm asking all this is because I've got a decision coming up regarding army, and I really have to decide whether I really want a 3-4year commitment or I'm just evading something.
  12. It would be cool to have a thread for discussion on the book/ significance of characters/events/actions. Anyway, On pg. 197 Roark turns down a commission from Weidler, for the building of a bank. He does this because they want to add a small facade to the side of a building. Then he claims its the most "selfish" thing he's ever done. I find this hard to believe. Firstly, if one were to live so perfectly not only would he refuse to pay any taxes - he would rather fight his oppressors than let them force his mind. Basically, I don't see how turning down a commission was in his self-interest. He could've started somewhere. What would've happened if he didn't get any other commissions later. He would've died like Henry Cameron, perfectly right? dieing drunk and refusing to build anything that's not "perfect" because its not in your "self-interest". Also anyone notice Toohey always uses a shit sense of humor for everything? I think this is a form of manipulation. Everything can be ridiculed. If you dont laugh its because you don't have a "sense of humor" as he says. When talking about people he always mentions the most insignificant repulsive things. E.g. Talking to Keating about Catherine - young couples "hands perspire - still its beautiful". Later, Keating thinks about his and Catherines hands perspiring and becomes more anxious about them looking like "Mickey mouse"(also a concept subconsciously inserted by Toohey). There are other references to them having children with "measles" and how its beautiful etc. I see that this idea is that Toohey is always equating beauty with ugliness. Measles = Beautiful. A stupid looking couple/ Micky Mouse couple = cute. Hands perspiring = cute. If Catherine wasn't clumsy = We wouldn't like her as much. I guess you could call it manipulation of some sort...(good references around pg 236)
  13. I've been reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". It was said that regulation breed more regulations which made perfect sense to me and that eventually any compromise with evil, collectivism, will lead to its victory, communism. This makes sense. However, it appears that in this day and age there is more hope for Objectivists. That there is more driving force on our side than there ever was. Observe, Israel. Born as a Socialist Zionist Democracy. Early black markets consisted of foreign food(outlawed to benefit local inferior business). Kibbutzim, the socialist communities were a beacon to the nation. Music, literature and the arts were imbued with collectivist influence. In addition, religious people began arriving who established strong holds over the democracy. However, today things have become better. I can buy food from overseas if I really want(although its cheaper here), I cant catch a public bus on Sabbath's but I can take a plane from the airport on Sabbath's(el-al was privatised). Ultra-Orthodox jews still continue to leech of taxpayer money and study at yeshivas in order to protect Israel from its evil deeds and ensure its survival. But the point is things are better, in spite of constant threat of extermination(usually an imminent threat is a way tyranny gains power no?). There is a huge IT industry, more skyscrapers, more businesses and ideas. How is US fairing in terms of advancing towards more capitalism? more regulations ? less? I hear every now and then of small regulations being removed.
  14. Correct. Yes, what if two people lay the claim at the same time? In the case of David discovering the land first then he would have the right to stake a claim, correct? And if Johnny(the discoverer) wanted to he could lay claim to the whole Island?
  15. The Island is 100km by 100km. David and Josh refuse to find somewhere else or compromise. Who would have/acquire a right to this land under following contexts: a)Johnny - the island's discoverer is also setting up his home on this Island, at another location. b)Johnny found the island and left, he doesn't want to hear about it.
  16. Jonny discovers and Island. People start arriving at this Island, and now David and Josh both find the same place appropriate to building their home on. Who has a right to the specific piece of land? The Government is just beginning to setup and no one owns any land yet. This scenario could also be applied to finding inhabitable land in space.
  17. A soldier is an individual protecting his self-interest. I'm thinking that If I decided to join the army I don't think it would make a difference in protecting my self-interest from enemies of freedom. However, if everyone would think like this than no one would be protected. I'm kind of struggling to resolve this conflict that seems to be inherent in what I'm saying. Joining the army is just exposing me, the individual, to more risks. If I remain a citizen I can let other people protect my freedom and enjoy an easier life with less risk, therefore protecting my self-interest to a greater extent. How can this be explained/resolved ? And... on the same theme. If I want to go visit a rogue/evil state because it has a beautiful landscape. Am I really acting against my self-interests if I know I will be safe? What difference does one man make in small amount of money which go to its tourist industry? Not going seems more like a sacrifice in this case, you sacrifice your enjoyment so that small money wont go to this country's tourist industry. However, on the other hand you are supporting a state which may be against your self-interests?
  18. A second question which follows is, is it worth it fighting for today's society? Rand praises the army, emotionally I agree however from what I understand logically something seems to conflicts. If I see innocent people being blown up by a suicide bomber an intense desire arises in me to kill those responsible. To blow them off the face of this earth. Yet on the other hand these same innocent people are sometimes those who could also be defined as "evil". Then the argument of whether you would rather have the evil who wants to completely eradicate you or the one who just wants to enslave you(which according to rand is the same thing - although a terrorist seems like a more immediate threat). So in terms of Objectivism you'd think the choices are what Robert J. Kolker posed. . Makes sense but none of them would include joining the army and risking your life. However, Rand is extremely supportive of the army. What premise is needed to be checked?
  19. For me the culture represents a struggle for freedom from oppression and discrimination. Although the link is not really solid, there is something beautiful I find in many Jewish historical events such as the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, Independence War, 67 War, Yom Kippur war. Now you could probably argue that they are fighting for a Jewish state given by God etc etc but I don't see it that way(although there is definitely some people who believe that). Also another rational reason would be my love for being direct. In israel we say "dugri". This means you don't go around in circles you just get to the point. "Water", not "pass the water please"(although being polite is possible depending on the situation). "feel free here" means actually feel free. Open the fridge take what you want. People also love to help soldiers - you need a place to stay, its very easy. Most families are willing to host you for a night or two. I cant claim to know the families motivation, maybe its "for the greater good" or maybe they believe they are helping soldiers and therefore themselves. A bus driver is not addressed as "Sir", nor is anyone else. On a bus if you want the driver to stop you say "Driver, stop for me at the next stop". Having grown up in Australia I'm used to addressing the driver as Sir and in many cases no one was sure who you were addressing so you'd have to walk up to the driver and address him as Sir. Of coarse there are many things I really disagree with - the draft, no public transport/business on sabbath and all that.
  20. Is there any rational reason for this to happen? I've began falling in love with my own culture(israeli), although the country was founded with heavy socialist ideals. The language also is the result of the religion and lots of the culture is affected by it.
  21. - So nothing is absolute, except it being windy outside(but this is just an assumption?) - No proof exists but then logical proof of God exists? - God explains itself by being infinite? Why cant the universe explain itself by being infinite?(because logic doesn't exist?)
  22. These words appear alot in our world. So its important to objectively define them and their use. (definitions taken from dictionary.com) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation By definition 1. we can argue that exploitation is a good thing. Same with definition 2? Is that not just confusing. I assume selfish utilization implies cheating on your friend but that is not objectively defined. How can one use these words without some real hard definition when they are brought up all the time concerning things like children "exploitation" in factories. From the socialist perspective "exploitation" seems to imply cheating, "greed"(evil by socialist standards), corruption, selfishness. From the Objective perspective then would "exploitation" be a good thing? Selfish utilization as seen in definition 2. Workers who could not make as much money they make in factories anywhere else are "exploited". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice Objectivism gives a wonderful example of values by giving you an option. Buy a wonderful hat or save a child. If you save the child it is not a sacrifice as you value the child more, but if you value the hat more and you give it up then it is a sacrifice. Definition 3 seems to cover the saving the child example as sacrifice even if you value the child more. So what is all this fuss about sacrifice? I seem to be confusing myself, but there are so many definitions of words how can we Objectively define and claim what is the proper definition?
  23. It was very basic labor. Fruit picking, cleaning dishes, kitchen work, food processing and sorting, agriculture. Even jobs involving machines/tractors were fairly simple and looked like anyone could be trained to do them.
  24. I've run into someone saying that many of the "great" philosophers were too intelligent to be able to properly convey their ideas to the rest of mankind. All I can say is that this logically does not make sense to me, but I cant proof to you why. - Einstein articulated his ideas - Aristotle, Newton etc How is one to argue/proof against what seems like an illogical statement?
×
×
  • Create New...