Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

lex_aver

Regulars
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    203

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by lex_aver

  4. A debate in Russian forum

    in Debates

    Posted · Edited by lex_aver

    I am not proposing a new debate, but rather want to post my response at a forum to get acclaim and advices.

    So, the subject is classic: Objectivism vs. Socialism. I do not put the post I'm answering at here, because I quoted it fully in my own post. I'll gladly put all previous posts at demand. If this topic is inappropriate here, feel free to move it to appropriate section. So, let's begin!

    I did not expected such comment. I mean, I wait for two days before responding, so emotions don't get in my way, and comrade Mao {my opponent's nick is Great Mao, I refered to him as comrade sarcastically} just pours a pile of dirt on me!

    It is very interesting that this usually calm and civil man reacts on my sentence about trade that way. I think I've found the root of the problem.

    And are YOU worthy of help?

    Recently the word "help" is used as some kind of idol. I assume that by help you mean selfless donation of money to the ones who lack them. Then listen, I will rather die than ask anybody to give me money selflessly. That would mean that I disvalue either me (assuming that I cannot repay the debt) and the one who donates money (because money is a product of reason, and I ask him to exchange it for nothing).

    Man who defecates on those who are unlucky in life does not deserve help

    Are you equating defecation with the claim that no one has right to put his hands in my wallet without my consent? Only one man defecates here - you, on my rights. And the reason for you to declare me rightless sacrificial animal is not my vice, but my ability.

    Do you know that man is social-biological creature? Man must live in rallied society. It is rallied society that have brought man to progress, and individualism is a cave instinct, a degradation {I must say that what I did not expect to hear is this. Man was really willing to expose truth about socialism :confused: }

    Ant is a social creature. Wolf is a social creature. Weaver is a social creature. They instinctively act together as a part of one machine - their "society" (it is not society in the human sense of the word, no matter how much you want it) and they cannot exist outside their society.

    Man is a different case. He is different from animals in one property that crashes your socialist theory and it is hatred to which that you've just confessed in. This property is rationality. Man does not act on instinct, he thinks, chooses among alternatives by his judgement.

    Man who invented the weel did it using his mind, not minds of others who couldn't do this. Man who invented telephone (Alexander Graham Bell is his name) did it himself too, not with minds of those who couldn't think of nothing better than pigeon post. Man who created first automobile (his name was Karl Benz) invented it using his mind, not minds of others who thought automobiles were impossible.

    Any of these men could survive on uninhabited island, but none of them could survive in a society in which he would be considered criminal for every cent he has that his neibour has not, in which he wuold be deprived of everything others don't have and in which every man of lesser ability could use his superiority as a right to friuts of his reason. Society that doesn't recognise his right to live for himself. Society that you offer as an ideal.

    Reply to myself:

    BTW, I've figured out what caused your burst. It is claim that men can deal with each other as equal, when no one bends and no one is bent. It is claim that there exists not only sacrifice and expropriation, but also one productive, noble kind of human relationships - trade.

  9. Shyness

    in Psychology and Self Improvement

    Posted

    I used to be extremely shy when I was a kid. I think you're right, Thales and ALS, the reason for shyness is Malevolent Universe Premise caused by negative experience. I remember being almost physically unable to greet and thank my teachers in the daycare. In school I unexpectedly (even for myself) have overcome this and began messing with others. However, for the reasons I still didn't uncover (partly because of evasion, maybe; I'll think of it) I switched to some arrogant type of closed paranoid.

    What was the final cure? Right, Objectivism. The root of my behavior was probably what caused Bertrand Stadler to sell himself to the government: the notion that real world is unknowable and hostile, that people cannot be dealt with rationally. Naturally, as I integrated my knowledge and learned philosophy, that notion have vaporized.

    I still have some minor difficulties in dealing with strangers: I find myself staring at them. However when I engage in vocal contact, this problem vanishes, and if I'm relaxed, it also vanishes.

    Good luck in overcoming your shyness, Yankee White. Remember, they are not out to get you, they don't even know you :P

  10. Creativity and Omniscience

    in Metaphysics and Epistemology

    Posted

    Ah, you should have specified your intentions earlier (or was it I who doesn't read well). Your endaevor is certainly noble, and I wish you success.

    Still, I think that you should pay more attention to what omniscience is, if you want to be consistent while exposing it in fiction. I suggest leaving absolute knowledge of the future out of the definition of omniscience, that would allow you to portray omniscient being that is volitional.

    Another thing that concerns me is whether omniscience truly limits imagination and capability of creating art. I God knows everything that exists, I don't think that it limits his capability of imagining what is possible, and Romantic Realist Art portrays world as it can and should be. You suggest that knowing all disallows being to form concepts. That is wrong, however, because knowledge, as opposed to awareness, is conceptual. So you basically refer to the being that is aware of everything in the Universe, but cannot hold concepts, and, because of that, is no smarter than urchin. I think you should elaborate more on why such being cannot form concepts, and, more importantly, why call such being omniscient, if it doesn't know anything, but only is aware of everything.

  11. Creativity and Omniscience

    in Metaphysics and Epistemology

    Posted

    I honestly can't understand how can you theorize on the omniscience, Tenure. It is flawed concept.

    1) Being is omniscient

    2) Being knows the future

    3) Being is not volitional, as volition would contradict future's absolute predictability

    4) Being can't have knowledge

    5) Being can't know the future <-- Contradiction!!!

    Seriously, Tenure, all your talk here doesn't make sense, and it cannot possibly make sense: you discuss how non-omniscient being is better in art then omniscient one, yet non of your test subjects can possibly practice art and none of your subjects can know the future or anything! This contradiction persists in all your posts in the topic, it's inherent in any elaboration on the omniscient God.

    Finally, when you are talking about creativity, you forget that creativity requires free will, and even if we ignore the contradiction above, it is still impossible to be creative if omniscient God exists, because if he exists than you don't have free will and therefore you can't be creative.

  12. Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix

    in Movies, Shows, and Theatre

    Posted

    I watched the movie yesterday and liked it a lot (I haven't read book yet, though I'm going to). It's really the best Harry Potter movie so far. I was very impressed by witch-in-pink, she is very like Randian villians and is brilliantly characterized.

    My favorite scene is when she is about to interrigate Harry. She says "What Minister won't know about won't harm him", identifying evasion as root of all evils tha plague the Ministry and the reason why he doesn't recognize return of the Dark Lord.

    My unfavorite scene is when Harry refuses to kill witch who killed Sirius Black. I think he did it because it was what Voland Mort whould do, and Harry was obsessed not to be like him at the moment. However, this is living murderer unpunished, and that is the only immoral thing Harry have done in the movie.

    So, what are your opinion and thoughts on movie?

  15. Creativity and Omniscience

    in Metaphysics and Epistemology

    Posted · Edited by lex_aver

    [God] knows everything that has, does and will happen.

    ...

    The thing is, is that it's the collorary fact of omniscience that limits God's ability to create. It forces God into the state where he doesn't so much create, as he just 'makes', or even less, he just follows a set mould, just following the motions. He knows exactly how everything will turn out, so he just sets everything off in motion, knowing exactly where it'll lead and exactly what will happen. The fact that he knows something, means it will never change, and the knowledge he had from the beginning will dictate everything.

    The concept of God knowing everything that will be implies determinism. That means God, as well as man, doesn't have volition. Therefore, God cannot practice art (in Aristotle's sense of the word). Neither can man, because everything he does is also predetermined by past events, even if he doesn't know them. So talking about God as volitional yet omniscient being doesn't make sense.

    Now I just want to lay down these fundamentals, because I want to make this all fundamentally clear. God is all about the known. Let's go back to animals and humans now. Animals have intrinsic knowledge of survival (keep this clear now, were talking about the fact that they already know what to do), where as man must learn how to do everything, especially how to use his mind effectively, if he wishes to survive. Another important difference, is that animals can hold only percepts, whilst men can hold percepts and concepts.

    If you are talking about primitive animals like bugs, then they cannot have any knowledge, because knowledge is conceptual; they don't even have memory, all their behaivior is predefined by their instincts.

    Complex animals like mammals that have memories, can hold experience, which they use as to perform specific tasks (like cats opening doors). Although experience is not conceptual, such animals use abstracts (otherwise, they couldn't have used their memories to do anything).

    Only man, who uses concepts and have volition, can have knowledge.

  16. Is Universal Suffrage proper?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    An argument can also be made that government functionaries or contractors electing the government is a conflict of interest.

    In capitalist country, is only freedom. In socialist country, is universal suffering. (More effective if delivered in a west Slavic accent). Anyhow, seriously, universal suffrage is a bad idea because it literally means that 2 year olds have the right to vote. Then who should have the right to have a measurable influence on the form of a government? Income level (dunno what an income census would be) for example an income greater than $40,000 per annum could be a consideration in terms of level of vested interest in the well-being of a rational society. But then I was thinking, maybe that might be a bit too high. The point of an income consideration would be to preclude welfare crack whores from setting policy. I actually doubt that many welfare crack whores can find the polling place so I don't think they matter so much.

    Underlyingly, there is this problem that allowing all non-criminal adults to influence the form of their government leads to plainly absurd results, but the first change I would suggest is disenfranchising the certifiably loopy, and then disenfranchising some recipients of benefits from taxation, but starting with the worst (for example, those who exist only on welfare payments). Low on the list would be rationalistic generalizations like "anyone who had ever benefited somehow from taxation".

    Err, guys, I don't understand what both of you are talking about :) Maybe, its reaction on me making unclear question in the first place?

    OK, I'll clarify.

    IMO, deciding whether to allow man to vote really means deciding if man is

    a) interested in government respecting rights (ie. is not thug or moocher)

    B) smart enough to decide who will be best in office

    A means that criminals are out. IMO, A and B also mean that only self-sustaining men must be allowed to vote: if they manage to earn considerable sum of money, then they are both smart and interested in their money having value. Because force overrides reason and, as consequence, money, such men will be interested in initiation of force remaining illegal. On the contrary, those who can't get out of poverty on their own will surely appreciate Robin Good to run the government. The thing is, it is questionable whether they will be smart enough to choose Robin Good, not Ellsworth Toohey. Either way, they will choose evil guy.

    That's my not-yet-refined position. I want more facts and arguments so I can give the issue deeper thought.

  17. Is Universal Suffrage proper?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    This question arose about year ago, and I still cannot figure the right answer. In capitalist country, will there be universal suffrage, or will there be income census? As of now, I think that income census makes much sense, but I want clearer understanding, so what arguments for each can you guys bring? Devil advocates are welcomed.

  18. Does causality give man an excuse?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    Ah! I have just finally understood it all. Man acts according to his nature, and in any situation he volitionally chooses his action, he has free will. But once action had been taken, it becomes a fact of reality, which is only identical to itself and cannot be altered. This may lead to false conclusion that the very process of making this act was deterministic. But it is wrong.

    Thanks to everyone for helping me in this!

  19. Does causality give man an excuse?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    If we assume for the sake of argument that we do not possess volition, noting also that few men agree on most things, least of all the nature and extent of the will, it follows that knowledge is impossible, as two men holding opposing ideas could not have chosen otherwise.

    I never argued that man doesn't posess volition. I only asked if it is deterministic or not.

    I think that this question is subordinary to the question whether causality itself is deterministic. So the basic question is "Given the situation, is there only one way for entity to act?" Mechanical experiments suggest that it is, but it is still unclear to me whether this induction can be stretched to human mind. As of now, I see no reason why it can't, but I am still unsure.

  20. Hello, fellow Objectivists!

    in Introductions and Personal Notes

    Posted

    Yeah you should tells us about yourself...

    Ok. Before I discovered Objectivism, I was typical who-we-are-to-judge humanitarian. Things have changed when my family got a bunch of books (I don't know how). One of them was Wizard's First rule. I consumed this book in exactly three days, and it seemed like fresh air for a man dying in the open space.

    The book was good, but it ended. I learned some valuable life lessons, though I and was curious if there were any sequels. A few days after I was walking down the street when I noticed second-hands book store. To my astonishment, there were books from 2 to 6 there! Needless to say, I persuaded mom to by them all and had read them within weeks. They were marvelous, especially sixth, which was my first venture into Objectivis politics.

    After I finished the books, I was curious about the author. I googled for him, and found his interview to scifidimensions.com. The interview was great, and there was one line that caught my attention: "I am Objectivist". Once I learned the name, it was only a matter of minutes before I got all the information on the Internet about Objectivism and Ayn Rand available (to Tenture: тогда я думал, что имя произносится как "Эйн Рэнд", что нашло отражение в школьных сочинениях :rolleyes:. Эх, русская классическая литература... ). Unfortunately, by now I only got my hands at two books by Ayn Rand, namely Philosophy of Individualism and Atlas Shrugged. So my main source of knowledge is the Internet, especially this forum, that for a year was my textbook :)

    About depth of my knowledge of Objectivism. I have only mediocre knowledge of metaphisics and epistemology, but good knowledge of ethics and fair knowledge of politics. I didn't touch aesthetics at all yet. But now, once I have voice on this forum, I will certainly bombard you with questions to fill the blanks, so brace yourself :)

  21. Does causality give man an excuse?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted · Edited by lex_aver

    "ten identical men with exact similar conditions of development" (again, something that does not actually exist), meant 10 human beings which the atoms of their body have the exact same position and identity at a certain time point, and who are exposed to identical physical conditions (also in terms of position and identity of atoms of the environment around those men).

    DavidOdden and DarkWaters are right, such this hypothetical is in conflict with axiom of identity. However, decision-making is always based on evaluating facts of reality. So, it is unclear to me if man's decision is predetermined by man's identity and situation he is in. That is the question my hypothetical was aimed to illustrate.

    Also, it is unclear to me whether free will implies randomness in decision-making or merely its goal-driven evaluation-based mechanism.

  24. Does causality give man an excuse?

    in Questions about Objectivism

    Posted

    Hello everyone, I am new to this forum. I was reading this forum for a few months, and now I finally have a reason to join you guys :)

    I was thinking about how free will gets along with causality. On the one hand, nothing happens out of random, everything has a cause, be it some preceding event or just existence of some entity. However, on the other hand, man has free will.

    So, in what context man's will is free? To be more specific, given identical circumstances, will ten identical men do the same? My answer is yes, because law of causality applies to everything, including man's mind. But when it comes to ethics, the question arises, if course of man's actions is predetermined, is it right to say if his action was moral or immoral? My answer is, again, yes. Man possesses volitional consciousness, i.e. he can choose from multiple alternatives using his reason. What exactly he will choose is determined by his personality, his identity. So judging man's actions really means judge man by his actions, deciding if he is good or evil.

    And here comes the interesting part, what makes me worry. If ten identical men will do the same in the identical situation, then man's personal development is predetermined. It seems to me that this fact doesn't give man an excuse, because it doesn't change who he is, and I man must be judged only by who he is, not how he became who he is. Yet I'm not sure. I ask you guys to help me understand this part better.

    And the last thing. I searched for free will threads on this forum and found out that some people here actually think that free will means random will. Although it seems bizarre to me, I'll appreciate good explanation on this point, too.

×
×
  • Create New...