Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Trebor

Regulars
  • Posts

    924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    Trebor reacted to Jacob86 in Argument for the existence of God   
    AGAIN, you are using "existence" here as synonymous with "physical reality" which begs the question. I do accept existence as a starting point (in fact I insist that it MUST be the starting point). But "existence" requires an existent! lol. There is no existence apart from existents. I am arguing that there must be an irreducible starting point which IS an existent and which is also conscious since a non-conscious existent cannot START anything.
    It's really fairly simple.

    Was it Rand who said something to the effect of "the hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everyone has decided to ignore"...?
  2. Like
    Trebor reacted to dream_weaver in Argument for the existence of God   
    Can you see hydrogen? Can you see oxygen?

    It would be more accurate to say that you are not able to comprehend what you are reading and integrate it with the rest of your observations of the world about you.

    The only place that contradictions can exist is in the epistemological department (the mind). You might consider hiring an epistemological housekeeper for a thorough epistemological housecleaning.
  3. Downvote
    Trebor got a reaction from Dante in Is taxation moral?   
    Consent and responsibility are two distinct concepts.

    To consent is to give one's permission to or to agree to do something. (Obviously this means voluntarily. Involuntary consent is a contradiction.) Being responsible is the state or fact of being accountable (or to blame) for something.

    If a majority of the citizens accept your view on taxation and consent to taxation as a means of funding the government, those who do not agree, do not consent, but they will be forced to pay the tax, and their rights will be violated, with the consent of your majority. Complying with the law or obeying the law does not imply consent or moral approval of the law or the government.

    Still, even those in the minority are responsible in the sense that it is their government that will be initiating force against them (with majority approval), and that, given that they are ultimately responsible for their own lives, rights and freedom, they have to decide what to do in the face of such a violation of their rights: flee or attempt to change the government, etc.

    "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." Bastiat, "The Law"

    The phrase, "the consent of the governed," simply means the consent of the individual(s) for the government to defend his rights, acting as his agent of self-defense, in accordance with the principle of individual rights. The individual has the right of self-defense, and it's only that use of force that he has the right to delegate or entrust to the government. He has no right to consent to the violation of the rights of others.
  4. Like
    Trebor got a reaction from 2046 in Is taxation moral?   
    Consent and responsibility are two distinct concepts.

    To consent is to give one's permission to or to agree to do something. (Obviously this means voluntarily. Involuntary consent is a contradiction.) Being responsible is the state or fact of being accountable (or to blame) for something.

    If a majority of the citizens accept your view on taxation and consent to taxation as a means of funding the government, those who do not agree, do not consent, but they will be forced to pay the tax, and their rights will be violated, with the consent of your majority. Complying with the law or obeying the law does not imply consent or moral approval of the law or the government.

    Still, even those in the minority are responsible in the sense that it is their government that will be initiating force against them (with majority approval), and that, given that they are ultimately responsible for their own lives, rights and freedom, they have to decide what to do in the face of such a violation of their rights: flee or attempt to change the government, etc.

    "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." Bastiat, "The Law"

    The phrase, "the consent of the governed," simply means the consent of the individual(s) for the government to defend his rights, acting as his agent of self-defense, in accordance with the principle of individual rights. The individual has the right of self-defense, and it's only that use of force that he has the right to delegate or entrust to the government. He has no right to consent to the violation of the rights of others.
  5. Like
    Trebor reacted to Thomas M. Miovas Jr. in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I don't know why West took down his post about the NoddleFood posting regarding the controversy, but I thank him for supplying the link. In that post there is a letter from David Harriman saying that he cannot support Whewell because Whewell was a 19th century Kantian. I have the same views on Whewell and do not understand why an Objectivist or a rational man would continue to support Whewell over Dr.Peikoff and David Harriman who have solved the problem of induction. So, I definitely see no reason to support McCaskey. But I will add that I cannot condemn him at this point since he doesn't seem to be promoting the Kantian aspects of Whewell. In other words, I am in the same position as before the NoddleFood post: I see no reason to support McCaskey on intellectual grounds and I don't see the evidence that he is a good Objectivist, his work at ARI and Anthem notwithstanding.

    Here's the link to the NoodleFood posting:

    http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html
  6. Like
    Trebor reacted to Thomas M. Miovas Jr. in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    I'm not against McCaskey's academic work per se. Judging from the papers available on his website he writes well and intelligently. I can see him supporting Bacon, as Bacon did provide many great leads on how to do science via Induction, but I don't know why he is supporting Whewell, but I don't know much about him. However, since McCaskey is recommending a book written by the author of the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Whewell, he must agree that the article is written well, and I see nothing to support there or in McCaskey's own writing on Whewell. So, it is more of a curiosity. I do think there is an injustice on his review of "The Logical Leap" because the book deserves better from an academician. But at this point, I am not outright condemning McCaskey because I don't see what he did that so upset Dr. Peikoff. His review on amazon.com came after Peikoff's letter, and he's been promoting Whewell for quite some time (as others have pointed out), so that doesn't seem to be the cause. But I also don't see anything written by him on Objectivism, so I can't judge that. So, I'm moderately against McCaskey given what I've said here and in this thread, but I'm not condemning him to hell either. Maybe he just doesn't see the value in "The Logical Leap."
  7. Downvote
    Trebor got a reaction from Grames in Is taxation moral?   
    Just what are the specifics, the relevant specifics in principle in relation to taxation and conscription, of this "contract voluntarily entered into" which you claim exists? And when and how do individuals voluntarily enter into it?

    Her caveat was not to the principle, but to the implementation of the principle. You are implying otherwise; do you not understand the difference?

    Rand was against both taxation as a means of funding the government, as immoral (See Taxation in the Lexicon), and she was against conscription, as immoral as well. (See Draft in the Lexicon) And she was right. But then she was not a pragmatist.
  8. Like
    Trebor got a reaction from Jake_Ellison in Is taxation moral?   
    Just what are the specifics, the relevant specifics in principle in relation to taxation and conscription, of this "contract voluntarily entered into" which you claim exists? And when and how do individuals voluntarily enter into it?

    Her caveat was not to the principle, but to the implementation of the principle. You are implying otherwise; do you not understand the difference?

    Rand was against both taxation as a means of funding the government, as immoral (See Taxation in the Lexicon), and she was against conscription, as immoral as well. (See Draft in the Lexicon) And she was right. But then she was not a pragmatist.
  9. Like
    Trebor got a reaction from 2046 in Fire Fighters Let Home Burn... for Delinquent $75   
    This is our future now with respect to health care.

    Dr. Andrew Bernstein announced that (on his Facebook page according to Diana Hsieh):

    "If the government takes over health care, I will refuse to buy their package, refuse to pay the fine imposed, and make them arrest me. I will broadcast my refusal to cave to socialism on my website, on Facebook, to my students, in my lectures, and on the radio. I will fight this in the courts--or will the DC Fascists suspend the right to trial by jury? I suspect--and hope--that millions of Americans will do the same."

    Now, fast forward ten years and Dr. Bernstein (and thousands or millions of others) has indeed refused to pay. Disregarding whatever legal consequences he will have faced or will be facing, suppose that Dr. Bernstein has a heart attack.

    He didn't pay the fee, therefore...
  10. Like
    Trebor got a reaction from 2046 in Is taxation moral?   
    Let me see if I can untangle this.

    In your view, self-defense is a species of retaliatory force which is a "broader set of actions."

    The individual, in your view, has the right of self-defense - a delimited use of retaliatory force on the personal or individual level; not a form of governmental retaliatory action - but the individual does not have the right to use retaliatory force beyond that of self-defense which you define or delimit as force "limited to the actions that are immediately necessary to keep the material values you already have: your life, health and property."

    Beyond force used in self-defense, retaliatory force, in your view, also includes governmental actions, "those actions necessary to achieve justice: returning stolen property, pursuing and punishing criminals, and the actions of the military." And as well, retaliatory force, in your view, also includes vigilantism: cruising "around your neighborhood trying to figure out who vandalized your car so you can beat him up.

    In brief, your view is that the "broader set of actions" that are retaliatory force include:

    1. Self-defense (a delimited but proper use of retaliatory force on a personal or individual level; not government action)
    2. Government action to achieve justice (proper use of retaliatory force, but retaliatory force beyond that of the limits of self-defense)
    3. Vigilantism (improper use of retaliatory force)

    I assume that you agree that the right of self-defense is a necessary corollary of individual rights, that the justification of the right of self-defense is the individual's right to life, which, as Miss Rand makes clear, is the fundamental right: "There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life." Individual Rights; "Man's Rights"

    Now, since you limit the right to self-defense to being "limited to the actions that are immediately necessary to keep the material values you already have: your life, health and property," I take it that you disagree with Miss Rand when she says, "The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement." (Self-Defense; "America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46.)

    So I am curious, in your view, on what basis is it proper for the government to engage in the use of retaliatory force, the non-self-defense use of retaliatory force?

    Your answer, I infer from what you have said, cannot be the individual's right of self-defense (or therefore the individual's right to life given that the right of self-defense is a corollary of that fundamental right) as you've delimited the right of self-defense to the right to take only "the actions that are immediately necessary to keep the material values you already have: your life, health and property," or non-governmental retaliatory force on an individual or personal level, such as, presumably, using force oneself to stop a mugger when the police are not there and able to stop the mugger on your behalf.
  11. Downvote
    Trebor got a reaction from 0096 2251 2110 8105 in Objective Truth   
    For a start, perhaps you'll find the online Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger helpful:

    Truth

    Follow the links at the end of that entry for more.
  12. Like
    Trebor got a reaction from Rockefeller in Induction through deduction?   
    I've recently listened to Dr. Peikoff's course, "Objectivism Through Induction," and took some notes with respect to what he said concerning concept formation and induction.


    Disc 10, Track 4, 01:00

    Question: "I don't understand the difference between concept formation and induction."

    Peikoff: "Well now those are radically different. I mean, not opposites, but a concept, think of as a single word, like "table," "chair," "man," "star,"run," "hit," "red," "green," etc. Concept is like a file-folder which you designate a certain category, all the things which have this shape, for instance, table, or this structure, man, and then you put in that file-folder every piece of information you gather by studying a few men, and you say, 'since it belongs to this category, what I have learned about the few men, that they are mortal, for instance, applies to all the rest in this category.' So induction is, let's say, is the cash value of concept formation. Concept formation, you form the single word which is the file-folder. Induction, you formulate a proposition, a sentence, a statement, all so-n-so is so-n-so, which consists of applying to every member in the category the things that you learned by studying some of them."

    And: '"Man" is a concept. "All men are mortal" is four concepts united into a proposition which is reached by induction.'

    Question: "Is induction used in concept formation?"

    Peikoff: "No. That's a great question. Induction is not used in the forming of a concept. The forming of a concept just...for instance, here's one table and another table and another, and I'm going to set these aside as against "chair," and I'm going to use this as a category from now on, and call it "table." There's no generalization in that. There's simply the setting aside of some concretes and opening a file. But now, the first time you start studying tables and you find, for instance, they're made of wood, assuming that was true, and you do that by studying ten of them and then you say, 'okay, that goes into the file now, all tables are wooden.' That is an induction."

    Edit: I'm uncertain as to what's proper, with respect to copyrights, when quoting such material. If posting such a quote is inappropriate, please let me know and delete this post. I could simply post a statement, in my own words, of the gist of Dr. Peikoff's response, but I thought the quote, if appropriate, given that it's brief, would be clear and helpful.
×
×
  • Create New...