lex_aver
-
Posts
203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by lex_aver
-
-
Vik, you may disagree, but for now it's my method of choice. You don't have to participate in this discussion if you don't want to.
Nicky, your animus is amusing.
-
Vik, it's most definitely not in any library in driving distance
-
sNerd, are "folk meanings" really enough? Rand was claiming to have an axiomatic system capable of justifying laissez-faire capitalism, yet people can honestly disagree on what they mean. Doesn't it concern you? Doesn't it warrant some elucidation of these basic concepts?
-
Vik, I don't want to give money to people who may spend them on furthering Rand's political agenda. And she's a terrible non-fiction writer (as I can see from the lexicon quotations), so I don't want to subject myself to slogging through hundreds of pages of her writing while I have better things to read.
-
That at least something exists."Existence (the sum of everything existing) is non-trivial,"
Could you explain what you mean by "non-trivial" here?
Descartes said: "cogito ergo sum". Rand said: "Sum, cogito"."The first two statements are the familiar cogito ergo sum, told backwards."
Although I think I get what you mean to say here, "I think, therefore I am" reversed would be "I am, therefore I think" and that's not exactly right in the implication that just because something exists it must think. Plenty of existents don't think.
I'll elaborate a bit. It seems that treating attributes as predicates implies that they exist independently of existents. For example, consider a sentence "our sun is hot, and this area of lava is hot". Are the two instances of "hot" here referring to the same attribute?Alright, so, attributes. Attributes are not existents, they are aspects of existents and as such cannot exist independently. "Hot" is a type of attribute for example. Lots of things are capable of having the attribute of hotness - a frying pan that's been on the stove for a while, the sun, lava, et cetera. Note though that hotness never exists by itself.
Suppose that "hot" in the above sentence refers to the same attribute for both sun and lava. Then "hot" doesn't seem to depend on either one of these existents. It may in some way depend on all existents it's applicable to, but not a single one in particular.
Suppose now that "hot" refers to different attributes for sun and lava. Now, let's introduce another attribute of lava: "liquid". Consider the following sentences: "lava is hot", and "lava is liquid". Is there a difference between them? It seems not: both these attributes are unique for lava, so I can't see any distinction one can draw between them.
The problem here is that "identity" is a very opaque concept: to my knowledge, Rand never elaborates on what it is, except by saying that it's related to attributes. So until we clear up the mess with attributes, your explanation is really meaningless.The basic way we'd describe what a contradiction is is it is any case of something going against its identity. A "married bachelor" can't exist and is a contradiction because being married is contrary to the nature of being a bachelor. Being a bachelor means not being married, but being married (obviously) means being married. Married and bachelor are mutually exclusive things.
And what is identification? In the lexicon quotations it's never given a definition, or any kind of explanation, really.The connection between logic and reality is that logic is derived from how reality works. Specifically, it is the systematic application of identification without contradiction.
Fair enough. Then I'll replace the question with a related one: how could non-determinism, in principle, could have evolved? How does it fit our understanding of physics, by which process could it have been acquired, and what possible evolutionary advantage could it have provided?That one is something that would need to be figured out by going out and observing things related to our ancestors.
I'll rephrase: what is the difference between the propositions "humans are indeterministic" and "humans have free will"?Not positive what you mean by "simple indeterminism" as opposed to free will
NoAs for humans versus other living things, I think you probably are interested in things like rights.
-
A fair warning is due:
- I'm an ex-Objectivist. Back when I liked Rand's ideas, I didn't have enough money to read her seminal non-fiction works, so I'm going by bits and pieces here. Also, I've only recently have overcome the shame I used to feel for having been a randroid (in the worst way possible), so if you look up my messages on other resources, you will see a lot of inflammatory comments. I'm sorry I've made them, I made a promise to be more considerate in the future.
- As you can see, I'm a veteran of this very forum. In case you're interested, here's a thread which started my divergence from Objectivism. It was a product of reading a small yet really great, concise and highly mathematical exposition to a simplified version of Keynesian general equilibrium, its applications to international trade and optimal economic development. As you can see, I've made some erroneous claims there, but by large it represented the shift in my thinking: from largely rhetorical and imprecise philosophizing (even where it was inappropriate) to rigorous and highly mathematical, using mathematical models where they can be constructed.
- The following is patched together from my Reddit posts. The discussion there didn't take off, and eventually I was redirected to objectivistliving.com. It didn't take there, either. Here are the topics where it was going on: (1), (2).
- My goal is to "scientifically" break down Objectivism to see what it's made of and how the pieces fit together; I'm doing it to get some closure for myself.
- These questions are debate-ish. While I honestly don't know the Objectivist position on them, I may challenge it when I learn it, so you can view this topic as an invitation to a debate. I'll try to keep it civil, but may fail to do so (ask Boydstun). I'll heed warnings, and will leave if asked by the moderators. I don't mind this topic being moved to another subforum if it'll be more appropriate there.
- I will not buy Rand's books unless I have compelling evidence that my questions are answered there and that a small summary or quotation will not do.
I'm starting this thread to ask for some clarification and hopefully to start an interesting discussion. Here is my parsing of the description of Objectivist Metaphysics on Wikipedia:
- Existence (the sum of everything existing) is non-trivial, which is self-evident.
- To be conscious is to be conscious of existence
- Existence is composed of entities, which are completely defined by their attributes.
- There are no contradictions in reality.
The first two statements are the familiar cogito ergo sum, told backwards. That is, where Descartes used deduction to arrive from (2) to (1), Rand simply posited both separately as self-evident. While (1) and (2) are easily understandable, (3) and (4) give me trouble.On the subject of (3).(Question 1) What are attributes? Suppose we have an entity X, and an attribute P. How does P work? Is it akin to a logical predicate that we can evaluate at X to get some truth value P(X)?- If so, can we apply it to another entity, some Y, to get P(Y)? From Rand's description it seems that we shouldn't be able to. Firstly, P is something X has, but this description suggests that P exists independently of X; for example, should X cease to exist, P may still exist if it is applicable to some Y. Secondly, if P is applicable to more than just X, then the sum of all entities to which P is applicable - what is it? Is it a concept? But we haven't described epistemology yet. Is it a Platonic ideal? Rand doesn't describe such a thing. Is it yet another entity? And is P then an entity in and of itself? Does it, in turn, have attributes?
- Suppose, on the other hand, P is not something that can be applied to other entities (we'll denote it X.P then). Then what is it? Consider two attributes of X: X.P and X.Q. What distinguishes them?
On the subject of (4).(Question 2) What exactly is a contradiction? I'm serious. Contradiction is usually defined as a part of some logical system (like natural deduction). But Rand doesn't specify how any logical system is connected to reality. We could try and save contradictions by using (4) as a definition, but there is something in the way: while it makes sense to say that contradiction is something that cannot exist in reality, it is clearly not enough to say that contradiction is something that doesn't exist in reality. To be able to say the former, we have to introduce the notion of possible reality (something that could exist, but doesn't). And if in the discussion of (3) we decided that an attribute is not something that can be applied to multiple entities then such a notion is impossible, because if we replace one entity X with another entity Y, how do we compare their attributes if not by applying them to both X and Y?The last two questions were originally from another Reddit discussion.How does Objectivism address the following issues with the free will hypothesis:
- The free will theorem states under very mild conditions that if humans are indeterministic, then so are elementary particles.
- Humans have evolved biologically from more primitive species. Also, studies of animal intelligence show that other mammals have (limited) capacity for abstract thought.
Both facts highly suggest that if free will is there, it's not limited to humans. In particular, if one wants to maintain "human exceptionalism", the following questions need to be answered:
- (Question 3) What is the difference between simple indeterminism and free will?
- (Question 4) What human ancestors had free will? By which process had free will evolved?
-
A man.
That doesn't help at all. How do you judge man's actions? By judging man himself? But if that does not require evaluating his actions, you got trashy moral theory. If it does, on the other hand, you simply got circular dependency.
-
Kelley concedes that ideas can be judged, but within his moral theory, ideological moral judgment is complicated and thus leads Kelley into a discussion on how, in most cases, one must not judge a person based on his ideas because there is too much room for error or arbitrary judgment. Kelley makes an attempt to morally judge a man's ideas and his actions (he places more emphasis on actions, since an idea that is not explicitly acted upon has less of an effect). The problem lies in the fact that once he cuts a man's ideas/motives (intentions)/mind) from his actions/consequences/body, he accepts a dichotomy between a mental cause and a physical effect--between an intention and a consequence--between the mind and body. Every action is united with an idea behind it, every effect has a cause.
What would be an action done without some sort of mental idea, motive or intention? It would be causeless--in direct violation of cause and effect. What would be an idea that is kept within one's self, without any sort of action promoting it? This is an impossibility. One's (explicit and implicit) philosophical principles and ideas impact and influence one's every action.
When one morally judges a person, one ought to judge him for his ideas and actions, his motives and his consequences, his mind and his body. He should not separate one's ideas/motives/mind into one category and his actions/consequences/body into another and then try to assign equal weight. This is the Objectivist moral theory and Kelley does not share it.
I'm yet to understand what's wrong in "separating" motives and consequences, because they are separate! If you want to judge them as whole you need to first integrate them into one entity. What is that entity?
-
I fail to see the difference. Strictly speaking, the latter is generalization of the former, but in context of the discussion, it doesn't seem to matter.
-
The title of the thread is "David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism". The main reason why I think that DK's moral theory is in opposition to Objectivism mainly lies in the fact that he embraces a philosophical concept that Objectivism rejects (Mind-body dichotomy). I fail to see the irrelevancy.
It is irrelevant to the concrete issue Kelley raises: wether to judge action by it's intended consequence or by its actual consequence.
The "question" I assume you are referring to, is whether or not, we should judge an action by its motive (the idea behind it) or the consequences of the action itself. Objectivism rejects the very notion of such a question because the question embodies the mind-body dichotomy.I fail to see how it does. And even if it's so, there is obvious difference between intended and actual consequence, so what should you question in that case is your rejection of the dichotomy.
You make good points later in your post, and I agree with them, but until you explain to me how does intended/actual translates to mind/body, I cannot accept them as relevant.
-
I didn't want to read all this lengthy discussion, I hope what I'm about to say does not repeat it.
The problem that philosophers have wrestled with so long is the dichotomy of the mind and body (or motive and consequence) and moral judgment. Two irrational products of this dichotomy are the Utilitarian and Kantian criteria of immorality. Utilitarians focus only on the consequence. Kantians focus only on the motive.Kelley is wrong when he says: "The Objectivist ethics, unfortunately, has yet to address this question in any depth." Rand completely rejected the mind-body dichotomy all-together, she rejected that there was even a question to begin with. I'll agree that nowhere did Rand explicitly write on how to morally judge another, she mostly wrote one why man needs to do it.
However, Rand wrote in multiple essays and in her books about the mind and body of man. She made no distinction between what a man thought and what a man did, and she rejected every attempt at such a distinction. Every action of a man has a root in his thoughts. The very instant a man makes his thought known he is performing an action. At every level of a man's life there is a complete integration of his mind and his body.
From "The New Intellectual":
This part is irrelevant to the question, alas.
Objectivism doesn't address the issue of the mind-body dichotomy because it already rejects it in its every form.What's not exactly what Kelly was writing about. He was writing about judging action by its intended consequences as opposed to judging action by its actual consequences. There is obviously a difference the two, and you can't simply, hm, wish it away.
Kelley doesn't reject the mind-body dichotomy rather, he embraces the dichotomy by attempting to solve its "problem". One cannot create an Objectivist theory by embracing what Objectivism rejects. In order to discuss and create a properly Objectivist theory, one would have to reject the dichotomy and discuss the issue opposite of the way Kelley does.Also irrelevant.
Kelley separates moral judgment into four parts: Evaluating actions, Interpreting motives, Inferring character traits, and Judging the person. Kelley attempts to make a distinction between the actions and the motives of a person. That is not Objectivist in any form.While it might not be how Rand viewed it, if she did, you are yet to show why isn't it compatible with Objectivism.
Rand said in a 1971 issue of "The Objectivist":Again irrelevant to the question, since intentions are usually quite conscious.
-
Knowing that Pixar typically produces quality movies and being a fan of science fiction, I went in to seeing Wall-E with somewhat high expectations. Not only was I let down by the quality of the movie itself but the basis of the movie is absolutely deplorable. The future mankind has been forced to abandon Earth because it is overrun with garbage. What caused this catastrophe? Capitalism. The movie makes the same point over and over, it's big corporations, consumer culture, and mass consumption that are at fault. Humans have also somehow been turned into dumb, fat, lazy creatures incapable of taking care of themselves.
In terms of the movie itself, the first half hour is almost completely devoid of dialogue, which is understandable part of the time but becomes a drag later on. The plot never really materializes into anything spectacular or unpredictable anyway- it seems Pixar needed some antagonist and plot device so they decided to make it a cliche copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey (who didn't see that coming?). It then rushes into the conclusion which I will discuss below.
End spoilers below:
The ending also makes no sense at all. Humans return to Earth which still seems largely incapable of supporting life (they better find shelter from those bug, sudden windstorms pretty fast!) but that's not the big problem. Wall-E loses his memory trying to fight the evil computer, but then a dramatic pause and a touch on the arm later from Eve and it's magically restored. I mean, seriously?
2 NineInfinity: you are SO wrong, man.
2 All: watch this movie. It's great, and don't worry: it has a bit of anit-capitalism in it (anti-corporativism, actually), but its message is very humanistic, and the movie itself is fun. BTW: let's try to collect all references to Rand in it =)
-
I'm reading Zeleazny's "This Immortal" now, it seems very good. You may try it too, if you haven't read it already.
-
No amount of belief makes socialism work. Nothing supernatural exists. Human minds are not metaphysically connected to each other and it's impossible for one person to think for another person. No amount of belief changes reality.
Actually, it often does, indirectly. Self-fulfilling prophecies come into mind as example. Sorry, I said stupid thing
-
What did you do to green-eyed?
-
Money is a medium of exchange - and gold certificates make much better currency than dollar bills.
Gold certificates are not currency, this term only applies to credit money, AFAIK.
Measuring the value of currency in grams is far superior to an arbitrary constant such as "dollars" or "euros."Do you really think that a gram of gold has intristic value? The fact that gold has value even while not being used as money doesn't mean much by itself. So far I fail to see why gold certificates are better than credit money.
It was only once the respective governments decided to rob the population by inflating the money supply, that they tried to erase all traces or the origin of those words.Inflation is a curse of modern monetary system, but money emission is not its greatest cause.
-
GreedyCapitalist, we are talking about currencies, not about marks of gold. I believe you can tell the difference between the two.
Kendall, what you're writing makes sense, and I tend to agree with you. I still need to think it over, though.
-
For any entities already operating globally, this is already the case.
International trade is being made in gold, AFAIK. For imports and exports, only two currencies are involved for huge markets of US, EU, UK and Japan. So no, it's not the case.
My guess is that there will not be too many popular currency-issuing banks. The desire to use the currency of a few banks that are considered ultra-reliable would be strong. I would guess that day-to-day currency that circulates would be from a small handful of banks.Maybe it's possible. I'm not very familiar with issues of emitting money, so I can't say for sure.
-
Because with many currencies it is very hard to track their value and exchange rates. Additionally, many local currencies would be rejected by shops two states away. One of the most important aspect of money is that everyone in a country accepts them as money, and local currencies lack it. That would turn trade between states - sometimes even between adjacent cities - is handicapped by the need to constantly exchange currencies, and that would be real pain with about 100 currencies in the US.
The only real way to keep privately emitted currencies while keeping trade intact would be to use symbolic or natural money, abolishing credit money. But that's comparable pain.
-
A question bothers me: if a country would abolish national currency and allowed banks to print their own, what would be effects on that nation's economy? IMO, that would raise transact expenses tremendously. So is it rational to do so? And if Central Bank and Treasury are inappropriate, what system do you suggest instead?
-
Well, with 100% reserve requirement all deposits would be just lying in banks' vaults. So banks would be able to actively use only those money they got from selling their bonds, and that's not too much considering all the expenses. Am I right?
-
But 100% reserve requirement would prevent banks from making profit altogether, wouldn't it?
-
Well, Deep Purple is more of Hard Rock, but they, along with Black Sabbath, are considered fathers of Heavy Metal. Machine Head, for example, features very hard sound, comparable to the ones of Black Sabbath and Paranoid.
-
Avampirist, what do you mean by 'immoral' music? I know about immoral people and actions, but not about immoral art.
There is no doubt that metal predominantly exudes a malevolent sense of life, with exceptions that are few and far between. If music is "metal" enough to be classified as such, then I don't think it's unreasonable to also lump the entire genre into one category and label it immoral in general, which, yes, would make it anti-Objectivist.Did you enjoy Star Wars? Did you enjoy Dostoyevskiy? If so, you've probably found value in them, in spite of the fact that they advocate values different from Objectivist ones.
That doesn't even take into account the obviously primitive beats that work towards disintegrating your mindOh come on, how can 5-minute track EVER disintegrate your mind?
the repetitive thumping and banging that is characteristic of metal.That's simply false. Try albums of Deep Purple mk.II or Black Sabbath's Paranoid. Or Iron Maiden's Later albums.
Look at it this way, we can say that Rand was the most "Objectivistic" Objectivist who's ever lived. She created the damn philosophy. So how would she react to metal? She'd hate it. it's anti-Objectivist.First of all, it's purely thought experiment, since Rand never spoke of rock since Woodstock. Second, hating metal just because Rand probably hated it is second-handed, don't you think?
For those who say that they listen to metal because they appreciate the technicality of the song, or skill of the musician, or the composition in general without taking heed of the lyrics, I'd say these are all rationalizations.Some lyrics are just funny (like Iron Maiden's Prowler), some are social (like anti-war Black Sabbath's War Pigs or Ozzy Osbourne's anti-alcohol Sucide Solution). You generalize falsely. Moreover, you DO can just enjoy the music, believe the guy who doesn't understand them all well
They'll say, "Uh, I like it for the beat only". No you don't.Do you claim you know me better than I do? Speaking of rock in general, I like Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen and Anarchy in the UK for great many things, but I am not an anarchist. Strange, eh?
I do not think just a trivial matter of taste, like preference of clothing style, or decorating your house; it can have a profound affect on your life.And how soon will I start worshipping devil Kant?
Ask Kurt Cobain or Jimi Hendrix, or Lain Staley, or Jim Morrison.Thanks, I'll better ask Eddie Van Halen, Paul McCartney, Ozzy Osbourne, Angus Young, Paul Dianno, Axl Rose, Alice Cooper...
People need to own up to the fact that they like metal for being metal. Not all metal is bad. And in fact, a lot of it is very uplifting and romantic, but most of it is not. And until people own up, they can't make the right decision to stop listening. I've made the decision, because I now am certain that it is unhealthy. If that's something you need to do, do it.People need to own up to the fact that one can't replace Holy Bible with Atlas Shrugged and call oneself Objectivist. And in fact, a lot of them are very uplifted and romantic, but most are still puritans. And until they own up, they can't make the right decision to start thinking. I've made the decision, because I now am certain that it is unhealthy, If that's something you need to do, do it.
P.S.: Religion Run Amok banner spawned below. The time is right, for once.
A fair warning and four questions
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted · Edited by lex_aver
What is this "identity"? The way you're talking about it makes me think about Plato's forms, but clearly this isn't what you mean. And how do you define similarity of entities? The only way I can think about is by seeing how many attributes they have in common, but then your argument becomes circular - that is, if you can even define what it means for two entities to have an attribute in common without treating attributes as predicates.
This is just one example, consider "this lava is hot" and "this lava is in Europe". Your argument doesn't apply in this case. Also, I asked about difference between attributes if we consider them unique to entities, I can't see how your argument would address that.