West
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by West
-
-
I recently found UpDown, which is a simulation of the stock market (prices reflect actual stock prices, etc.). For those of us out there who are looking to learn more about investing, this looks like it could be a good learning resource (and it's really fun!). If you are particularly good and can "beat" the S&P, it even pays real money.
For those that are interested, let me know; this is something that I'm going to stay on top of on a daily basis as exercise.
For info:
-
Since Lisa VanDamme's lecture course at OCON 2009 is going to be on Henrik Ibsen, I'm also up for doing 'A Doll's House' and 'An Enemy of the People'. They're shorter as well for those that aren't looking to read anything of great length.
-
Right now, 4 people have agreed to do "How the Scots Invented the Modern World". Tenure has suggested a January start date.
In addition, Sophia and I both said we were interested in "Economics and the public Welfare" by Benjamin Anderson. I guess, we'll probably do that sometime early 2009.
For fiction, "The Scarlet Pimpernel" has been suggested. Not sure if Tenure agreed to that, or if he was agreeing about fiction in general.
At any rate, the most concrete plan right now is the book about the Scottish Enlightenment, mentioned above.
I finished the Scarlet Pimpernel about 2-3 weeks ago (freeing up the copy for athena), but I'd still participate in the discussion for it. I just purchased Economics and the Public Welfare, so I would read/participate in that as well. Since I don't want to buy another copy of 'How the Scots Invented the Modern World,' and I don't want my reading time to conflict with athena's, I'm going to hold off on that one for now. So, count me in on the other two.
-
Looks pretty fun from what I can tell. I really liked the content. I think the maniacally schizoid editing would eventually grate on anyone with an attention span longer than that of a gnat. I actually find the concept of an "art attack" kind of comical: "Johannes Vermeer is gonna reach through the screen and punch you in the skull with his subtle use of light and intense color!!!".
Fun times.
Sandstead definitely capitalizes on all the possible puns--"I'm having an art attack!" or "I'm going to be the first international art-throb!" The idea is to get people pumped up about art. I'm definitely digging it.
-
Clips of Lee Sandstead's Art Attack are finally available; actual episodes begin airing November 30th on Sundays--check local listings for times:
http://www.travelchannel.com/Video_&_P...upId=2550966001
Note to Mods: I wanted to distinguish this post from the Dallas event post on Sandstead, but if you want to merge it with that one, feel free)
-
Abstaining is refusing to judge.
Would you say the same thing if one refused to vote in the Carter/Reagan election? Just curious.
-
I'll second sNerd's post and add some etymological history:
Principle: c.1380, "fundamental truth or proposition," from Anglo-Norm. Principle, from O.Fr. principe, from L. principium (pl. principia) "a beginning, first part," from princeps (see prince). Meaning "origin, source" is attested from 1413. Sense of "general rule of conduct" is from c.1532. Used absolutely for (good or moral) principle from 1653. -
Um, that's because gravity isn't a principle. It's a THEORY.
Is that a joke?
-
Hmmm... "pertains to morality."... That's not the same as "is moral." Do you mean: every human action can be judged on the basis of its morality? Given that that judgment could range anywhere from "moral" to "immoral," with "amoral" in the middle somewhere... I'm not sure what this does for us. Can we say that every physical object pertains to size, color, velocity?
You can try not breathing, but your physical pain response will probably make it tough. Even if your will held out, very soon you would lose consciousness and commence breathing, so I'm pretty sure breathing does not count as a moral act. (note, in Objectivist terms, you are conflating biological life with philosophical "life." Morality pertains to the latter, but not necessarily to the former)
I believe morality implies not just a relationship to sustainment of biological life, but a rational decision that supports one's values. Photokinesis is not a moral act; resisting tyranny is.
Thanks, agrippa. This: "Morality pertains to the latter, but not necessarily to the former" is exactly the answer I was looking for. I agree.
West, you've driven us into a swamp. First you go out of your way to insist that there are moral principles vs. some other (unspecified) type of principles, then you say that *all* principles are, by definition, moral principles so basically the term is redundant. You're going to have to make up your mind if you want us to be able to have some sort of sensible discussion, because the way things stand it's impossible to either agree or disagree with what you've said.I do insist that moral principles are separate from scientific principles, economic principles, principles in medicine, principles of literature, principles of... do I need to continue? I didn't say that *all* principles are by definition moral principles; I asked if all human actions pertain to morality (agrippa cleared this up). The only reason why you'd think I was offering two opposing viewpoints is because you grant yourself that all principles prescribe a certain course of action, which I disagree with. Not every principle is normative--the principle of gravity does not prescribe any sort of action. It just is.
edit: to clarify - I do agree that there are principles outside of morality that prescribe a certain course of action, but disagree with the conclusion that every principle prescribes a certain course of action.
-
::drools::
That "slow time" effect seems really damn cool.
-
Breathing would be one.
There's a principle that man requires food periodically to survive, and one might use that principle to kill and eat the mailman. Morality would dictate evaluating the consequences, immediate, long term and philosophical, of following the available courses of action, and choosing the one proper to that morality. So, no, morality does not necessarily dictate what course of action one takes. Though I guess it does dictate the course of action one should take, given we agree that should implies morality.
Not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not; do I need to add: "Are there human actions that don't pertain to morality, given their properly delimited context?" ? Considering morality/ethics is normative, I would assume that the fact of breathing implies a certain relationship to life, and thus has moral implications since man can choose to breathe or choose not to breathe, giving rise to the question "should one to breathe, given the context?" Since we can agree that that "should" implies morality, and "should" derives from facts (is-->ought in the context and in relation to man's life), again, can we therefore not say that every human action pertains to morality?
-
I disagree that only moral principles can prescribe a certain course of action. Dr. Peikoff specifically mentions principles of good public speaking in his "Why should one act on principle?" speech, like "motivate your audience" or "be prepared". So it doesn't have to be a moral issue in order to form principles.
Are there human actions that do not pertain to morality? I thought morality dictates what course of action one should take, given that one wants to achieve certain goals.
-
I disagree with that. A person may believe, for instance, that "we are our brothers' keepers," and base his decisions on this principle. In that case, both his principle and his prescribed actions are immoral.
You could, of course, argue that true principles are moral, and that "we are our brothers' keepers" is neither moral, nor a principle, because it is based on more fundamental assumptions that entail a contradiction. If all true principles are moral, however, then the insertion of "moral" into the statement is redundant.
I would argue that principles are not necessarily moral in and of themselves, but that the application of one or more principles to a particular situation entails a moral judgment, especially when the principles prescribe contradictory courses of action. A moral course of action may then either require that both principles are upheld, or that the dominating principle is chosen over the less important.
I was writing this post when I was notified in chat that sNerd had responded. sNerd answered it for me, but here was what I was typing already:
"I didn't mean 'moral' principles as opposed to immoral principles, but instead principles that pertain to the realm of morality (or ethics), which determines whether they are good or bad. The principle "we are our brothers' keepers" is an ethical principle that prescribes certain actions. I think we can agree on that."
Beyond that, the logic works like this: "All principles are ideas, but not all ideas are principles." Certain principles do prescribe certain actions. As JMeganSnow already indicated, the principle of free trade prescribes (and represents) actions that protect individual rights. The principle of protectionism on the other hand prescribes the infringement of individual rights. Examples are the Corn Laws between 1815 and 1846, Bush's 2002 Steel Tariff, or the Jones-Costigan act (Sugar). Identifying the use of governmental force as being the basis of these actions gives meaning to the principle of "Protectionism," and why it entails the infringement of individual rights. Using induction, you go broader to discover the common, primary fact underlying the examples (which is the means of identifying the principle in a context). When Peikoff uses the "shorthand" of the principle of free trade or the principle of protectionism, he is condensing and identifying the primary fact that underlies a ton of possible actions. This is why principles are so important--they allow greater manageability. The difference between a principle and a concept is the fact that a principle is the identification of a primary fact upon which other facts are based; a concept is the integration of two or more concretes. Both represent distinct forms of integration.
-
An example of identifying a principle:
Two nights in a row, I get only 4 hours of sleep. While at work, I'm exhausted and complete only two of the four tasks I was assigned. The next two nights, I get a solid 8 hours of sleep each night. The next day, I complete all of the tasks I was assigned. A generalization: I have more energy when I've gotten enough sleep. The principle to be drawn: adequate sleep increases productivity.
A more complex identification:
In the news, a group of environmentalists issue a number of separate statements that denounce as evil the use of oil to heat homes, the use of fur products, jewelry containing diamonds, off-road vehicles, sports cars, and perfume. An observation: all of the concretes are rational pleasures that are man-made. The philosophical principle to be drawn: pleasure is evil.
Principles are generalizations that prescribe a certain course of action.I'd amend this statement with "moral principles are generalizations that prescribe a certain course of action."
-
I remember you being in chat when we were discussing this topic. The definition we came up with for "principle" was "A fundamental integration unifying and combining separate related generalizations." A principle does for generalizations what a concept does for concretes in other words. OPAR gives this on a principle:
"A "principle" is a general truth on which other truths depend. Every science and every field of thought involves the discovery and application of principles. Leaving aside certain special cases, a principle may be described as a fundamental reached by induction. Such knowledge is necessary to a conceptual consciousness for the same reason that induction and the grasp of fundamentals are necessary. [page 218, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand]Here's this as well:
Leonard Peikoff's 'Why Should One Act on Principle?' - http://wcmedia.aynrand.org/aynrand/registe...onprinciple.wma
I'll provide some examples tomorrow if it's still necessary.
-
Thank you for your comment on the post.
But, I'm confused
. Isn't it Ayn Rand herself that said Objectivism is not a political party but a philosophy? Do you see anything on the site that would lead you to believe that we are not very big proponents of Objectivism?Reading someone state that 'government has no proper functions' would lead me to believe this, yes. Philosophy has certain implications in the realm of politics, and Objectivism in particular is in direct opposition to Anarchism.
-
"Chavez lauds his nationalizations for allowing [hah!] the state to refocus companies' activities on helping the poor rather than creating value for their shareholders."
-
Just to be clear, since the title of the post specifically referenced the presidential race, I selected "Not voting" to signify that I was abstaining from voting in the presidential race, but will still be casting votes in other races. I suspect many of the others who chose "Not voting" are doing likewise.
Craig beat me to it. I thought we were talking strictly presidential candidates. I still plan on voting for local issues.
-
This site gives a description of the textbooks: http://www.learningthings.com/items.asp?Cc...tatus=1&Tp=
-
I similarly wanted a conceptual (hierarchically-appropriate) approach to mathematics. I learned about John Saxon's math textbook series after listening to one of Lisa VanDamme's lectures (one of her students mastered calculus through self-study with these books at the age of 12). The books offer day-to-day lessons, quizzes, etc. with an emphasis on proper conceptual hierarchy. I highly recommend them.
I bought his Algebra, Algebra 2, and advanced mathematics textbooks for all under $10 from www.allbookstores.com and half.ebay.com
-
Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT Richard S. Lindzen , a UN IPCC expert reviewer, has published a 35-page paper titled "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" It's of interest to those getting into the Global Warming debate.
-
I can't seem to find any videos of Objectivists debating other people on certain topics. It's always Rep. Vs. Dem., or Dem. Vs. Lib. etc... Can somebody post some debates involving Objectivists up?
On the right-hand side of the site, check out the debate between Yaron Brook and Jeffrey Finkle on Eminent Domain: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events.asp
-
I'll take a different tack than Dave on this one. I don't think there is anything wrong with accepting his offer. Price is about value, and value is not intrinsic. The man has told you what he values the work at, and the competitive "going rate" is only relevant if he wishes to pursue a competitive situation farther.
That said, a lot also depends on the context of your relationship, and the potential damage to you if he does find out after the fact that the going rate is higher, and whether you think he'll be upset later (although he has no right to be).
But that said, if it was a one-off job, and the man approached me, then I'd say sure, and I'd make sure I did a bang-up job, maybe even throw in a little extra work so that he is well satisfied with the work.
I agree with this. In economics, they use a comparative advantage model to establish a range under which two participants may trade to mutual benefit. To me, this example was just in the higher range for myself, while the guy for all I know could have been willing to pay a higher price (and obviously wouldn't mind paying a lower price).
-
If we assume that you have a moral commitment to truth, you are morally obligated to correct the customer's mistaken impression. That is true of technical matters (e.g. "that kind of paint won't stick to that surface") probably to the point of being a legal duty, and would be true at the personal moral level of significant information about "the going rate". This is an instance of "the Trader Principle".
Is arbitrage therefore immoral, due to the discrepancy in price?
UpDown -- FantasyFootball for Securities
in Recreation and The Good Life
Posted
My username is 'Manoftwistsandturns'. If there are enough serious people interested, I'd like to start an investment group as well in order to compete.