Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Nicky in What do you think of "The Red Pill" worldview?   
    Well, even if we fully buy into the "good provider" theory, that is an evolutionary theory. In other words, it deals in men as they lived before specialization (as hunter gatherers, where you proved you are a good provider and protector through behavior, rather than any achievement or possession. And it was a very specific set of behaviors, because there was only one way to be a good provider and protector: be strong, fit, assertive, but also loving, open and honest. Specifically, EMOTIONALLY honest.
    This is what the "Red Pill" crowd fails to understand: being honest, being willing to put yourself out there (not being guarded, but rather being willing to take the risk of being hurt), being caring and genuinely curious about a woman's deepest emotions and experiences, etc. is just as attractive as being confident, strong and decisive...and to be attractive beyond a first few short encounters requires you to be both, and be so genuinely. Not play the role of the "nice friend who listens to her boyfriend problems", but be genuinely interested, and know how to make her comfortable to share those things with you.
    Also, you gotta know WHO to become genuinely interested in. If you're gonna insist on chasing after someone who rejected you, that's not "alpha male" behavior (I'm using it in quotes because it's a stupid term, I prefer to call it "selfish, confident man"), that's the very definition of a needy man who can't handle the rejection and must validate himself by changing this woman's opinion of him. An alpha male actually wants a woman to make her own decisions (by putting his honest self and his honest intentions, without any stupid tricks and games), and happily respects her decision, whichever way it goes.
    As for the reason why so called "good providers" get dumped: it's because they're only good providers materially. Not emotionally, not intellectually, and not sexually. They just bring home the bacon, and think that's good enough. So when the, again so called, alpha male comes around and knows how to make a woman feel sexually desired (which is a HUUUGE turn-on for women, probably the biggest), has interesting stories about people, travel, adventures, AND in general is a guy willing to take risks emotionally and connect on an emotional level, he's everything the bacon bringer-homer is not, in all the ways that actually count.
    Also (according to the theory), women aren't specifically attracted to a "good provider", but rather to a "potential good provider". Someone who proves that they have the ability to be good providers. Let's take two identical twins, who were separated at birth, and are now both age 20:
    The first one, Mr. A, is a billionaire CEO. He wears the same T-shirt and jeans everywhere he goes, he has a bland haircut,  he spends 14 hours a day working, has a very serious demeanor, he hates talking about his personal life or his emotions to anyone except maybe his therapist or one or two of his closest friends. And he gets embarrassed any time someone openly talks about sex...especially if there are women present. He speaks well, but softly, and prefers to stick with a few of his favorite subjects, mostly work, politics, technology and his wood carving hobby.
    The second one, Mr. B, is a college kid who lives in a dorm, and has no material possessions or marketable skills. He has the same haircut as the dude from Vikings, he has cool tattoos, a leather jacket and clean but torn jeans, a V-neck Queens of the Stone Age T-shirt, dogtags and rings, and a big smile on his face. He's loud but friendly, gets along with people despite the fact that he never tries to cater to anyone's needs unsolicited. He'll help you out if you ask, but only if he likes you, and only if you have something to give back. He loves talking about himself, he's open about his emotional and sex life. Annoyingly open. He also doesn't take himself particularly seriously, he's actually a little dismissive about his own problems...he mentions them, but not to complain. Just as a matter of fact.
    Guess who is perceived as the "potentially good provider" by women. That's right, mr. B. Because 100,000 years ago, Mr A would've been a terrible provider and protector, while mr. B would've been excellent. Also, not much changed in 100,000 years. Mr. A has a lot of learning to do before he could be a truly good provider, even with billions in the bank. Because money is not enough, if you're not emotionally and physically available to your family. Meanwhile, Mr. B would do fine, if he decided to settle down and have a family. He doesn't want to do that, but that doesn't change the fact that he could if he wanted to...so he's attractive to women.
  2. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Gus Van Horn blog in Reblogged:None of the Above, in Human Form, Please   
    Between Ben Domenech of the New York Post and psychologist Michael Hurd, who blogs at the Daily Dose of Reason, we have some bad news about our culture in snapshot form.

    First, Domenech contends that Joe Biden -- queue jokes about him taking his old boss's "lead from behind" literally -- has fallen victim to a process he helped create.

    Domenech starts with the irony that Biden bragged in the last Democratic debate about "almost single-handedly" keeping Robert Bork off the Supreme Court:

    Domenech is absolutely right about this, and he elaborates a bit later:
    My only complaint with the above observations is that they don't go far enough. The Republicans went with a political novice in the last election, and their primary process, which Hot Air's Allahpundit observes "allowed Trump to pile up an insurmountable lead" isn't exactly built on the premise of thoroughly vetting anyone or carefully weighing alternatives, either. (The Democratic "debates" accomplish this in a different way: by everyone having (or pretending to have) views so indistinguishable we end up with things like all the candidates raising their hands as being in favor of medical care for indigent immigrants at taxpayer expense.)

    To begin to understand the significance of this bipartisan quest for a living, breathing embodiment of "none-of-the-above," we turn to Michael Hurd, who recently said:
    And later:
    Our country has been sleepwalking from freedom to chains for generations, now, and the records of our uniformly lousy politicians are proof. And yet most people are too comfortable with our unstable mixed economy or too averse to thinking deeply about politics (which the mixed economy keeps making intrude our daily lives more and more each day) to think deeply about making a different choice than they have their entire lives.

    Voters sense something is wrong, but do not know or care to ask why. They evade the fact that all the unlikable people with bad records they reject were once young spouters of good intentions themselves -- and end up repeating the very same mistake. News flash: If everyone who runs on the same set of platitudes ends up with a bad record, consider the idea that it is the platitudes which are bad, having been put into practice and failing so many times.

    Until this changes, we will ironically have politics, which nobody wants to discuss seriously, taking up more and more of our daily lives because we keep electing people who tell us that they will take care of everything, and that they mean well.

    To propose to take even partial control of the lives of other adults is to propose to do exactly the opposite of what a government official should be doing. And it is not a good intention, no matter how nice the person making the proposal might seem.

    -- CAV Link to Original
  3. Like
    Craig24 reacted to StrictlyLogical in Consciousness as Irreducible   
    Mr Swig:  You claim this statement by Eiuol is unnecessary or imprecise... BUT it is logically equivalent to "no disembodied actions exit".... Are you proposing the possibility of "disembodied action"?
    A - I saw running in the lobby today.
    B - Sorry, WHAT did you see running in the lobby?
    A - No, I saw running in the lobby just "running".
    B - Did you see people running, or dogs running or ... mice running?  I mean you must have seen SOMETHING running in the lobby?
    A - Nope just "running"... I saw it in the lobby today.
    B - <shakes head> that's incredible, that's fantastic and impossible... there cannot be running without something running <walks away>
  4. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from softwareNerd in The Trolley Problem   
    My action?  I'm stuck on a train that will kill 1 person or 5 people no matter what I do.  I can only minimize the casualties.  
  5. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Grames in Means and Ends - False Dichotomy or Just False?   
    When there are people around you starting to feel a little squeamish about the amount of blood being shed, you remind them that the end justifies the means.  Then raise your eyebrow at them.
  6. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Grames in Means and Ends - False Dichotomy or Just False?   
    I agree.  There is a thread here discussing Consequentialism as the category of moral theories holding that morality lies in the ends not the means.  Deonotological moral theories hold that morality lies in taking certain actions, i.e. the means not the ends.  The two together form a category of Intrinsicist moral theories.  As intrinsicism is entirely false, ends versus means is a false dichotomy.
    Recapitulating what user gio reminded us of in that thread : Morality guides action, and actions are means.  Thus in Objectivism morality is about means and so cannot be characterized as Consequentialist or compatible with Consequentialism.  But Objectivism does not tell us what actions to take.  No actions are intrinsically good in Objectivism because Objectivist ethics are not Deontological (or intrinsicist of any type). 
    Objectivism is based on identity and causality, thus the appropriate actions to take are the ones that cause the consequences desired.  The full appreciation of the problem of morality is that multiple actions may bring about the desired consequence, and each action will have multiple consequences in addition to the desired consequence.  It's just too much to deal with, it's an epistemological overload. 
    Objectivist ethics then, goes on at length about values and codes of values and the standard of value in order to deal with the epistemological problem of morality.
  7. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Nicky in The family cannot survive without duty.   
    The logical consequences of an obligation to passing down the family's genes are pretty striking. It means for instance that an adopted child can not be part of the family. It also means that people unfit to have children should bring them into the world, and raise them in misery and abuse, rather than just "break the link".  It also means that family supersedes justice, and powerful families have a duty to protect a criminal son or daughter from the consequences of their actions, lest that breaks the genetic link. Conversely, it means that children born into dysfunctional or criminal families (like the Mafia) should remain in the fold, and lead the irrational, destructive way of life that family imposes on them.
    Some humans. Not all. There are plenty of examples, throughout the ages, of people who've been able to remain rational in the face of cultural pressure to set reason aside when it comes to family.
  8. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Nicky in The Case for Open Objectivism   
    Objectivism is a philosophy, not a movement. There is no reason for Objectivism to be a movement.
    It's perfectly fine the way it is, with people knowing exactly what it is, and free to subscribe to the philosophy, in whole or in part, and free to choose whether to work together for some common goal, or not. If it ever becomes a single, "open" movement, that movement will end up with leaders, and the leaders will want to add their own ideas to the tenets of the movement, and, since Ayn Rand was a genius, them and their ideas will end up not living up to her intellect...and then that will be that, because no one will care about another self-contradicting Libertarian political movement that can be thoroughly demolished by anyone with half a brain.
    That's what an "open Objectivist movement" is, btw. : Libertarianism. They took a few really good ideas (mostly Ayn Rand's, and a few Economists'), formed a movement and opened it up to whatever ideas anyone willing to participate could come up with. Now their movement has religious fanatics, pacifists, anarchists, anarcho-socialists, protectionists, isolationists, nationalists, wackos and weirdos and dingbats and dodos... everything except for intellectually consistent defenders of individual rights.
  9. Thanks
    Craig24 got a reaction from Akilah in Objectivist values and the personal.   
    What is health and how do you achieve it?  Reason supplies the answer
    Why do you want to be healthy?  Purpose supplies the answer
    Are you good at being healthy?  Yes?   Self esteem is the result
    Now substitute wealth for health and ask the same three questions.
  10. Like
    Craig24 reacted to 2046 in "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton   
    Let us review the Rand quotation again:
    "Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action " (Rand 1964, ix-x).
    If we're going to take the Randian "literalness" approach, where one does not "translate it" nor "endow it" with some "meaning of your own," then it seems neither necessarily follows.
    My (1) would be something like:
    [T]he actor must always be the beneficiary of his action, and no one else.
    My (2) would be something like:
    [T]he actor must always be the beneficiary of his action, and others can too.
    Both add a predicate that is not literally present and endow it with meaning that is not literally present in the original single quotation. So if we're going on the literalness approach alone, you can't say only (1) follows. Strictly speaking, we don't know if others are allowed to benefit, based singularly on the literalness of the quotation. We don't know that they are or aren't. It is neither logically excluded or entailed.
    Suppose in some cave somewhere, a long lost scroll of Socrates' writings were found. The scroll contained the following passage:
    Scroll 1
    Socrates: S must always P.
    Suppose Scholar A had the following interpretation:
    Scholar A: What Socrates means is S and only S must always P, and no one else. It's the only literal interpretation!
    Suppose Scholar B had the following objection:
    Scholar B: Well that's not literally what Socrates says here, clearly not the only interpretation. I assume Socrates means S must always P, and sometimes Q as well.
    Strictly speaking, based on the Scroll 1 alone, both interpretations are "live options" as academics say, we can't infer one or the other just on the literal words of Socrates. Suppose then a second scroll is uncovered:
    Scroll 2
    Socrates: Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent, uncoerced judgment.
    Every agreement is delimited, specified and subject to certain conditions, that is, dependent upon a mutual trade to mutual benefit.
    In a free society, men deal with one another by voluntary, uncoerced exchange, by mutual consent to mutual profit...
    Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage...
    It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit...
    The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other.
    (And I know I'm shifting from symbols to text here, but bear with me.) What would we then say about Scholar A's interpretation? Perhaps in the days when all we had was Scroll 1, it was a viable option. Even then, it wasn't the only option, because the predicate "and no one else" was added, that is, not literal, an endowment, if you will, like the character from the Chris Rock movie "Head of State," whose campaign slogan was "God bless America... and no place else!" It was an interpretation that wasn't logically incompatible, if not logically entailed. But now that we have Scroll 2, what would we say if Scholar A persisted that his interpretation of Socrates was the only one true logical interpretation? We might say that's just silly.
  11. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Eiuol in Veganism under Objectivism   
    We can only define nature in terms of purpose. The thing about a thief is that being a thief is within human nature as far as anyone can choose to be a thief. But if you say "it's in the nature of a thief to steal", people would usually mean "people who are thieves always steal, that's just the kind of person they are". Assuming that people can't just be divided into "natural" classes, saying someone is a thief just identifies that they have chosen to steal often. 
    Saying nature would mean something central to a person's identity. "Stealing" isn't central so much as an option. In other words, they don't imperatively it to exist. It's also a reason morality applies to a thief just as much to an entrepreneur. Thieves and entrepreneurs don't have different natures. 
    Lions and humans have very different natures. They are "naturally" different. This is how it's possible to say that one has rights but the other doesn't.
  12. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Nicky in Global Warming   
    Meh. I'm still hoping I can get you to do two things:
    1. consider how ridiculous the proposition that "20% of all greenhouse emissions on Earth come from cows belching and farting" is.
    2. As a result, re-read the articles you posted, to find the disclaimer they buried deep within, where it's explained that the click-bait, simplistic headline is in fact misleading, and they added together a bunch of other emissions that have nothing to do with cows belching or farting, to come up with that estimate of 20%. Had they stuck with just cows belching and farting, it would be a far smaller number, no one would care, no one would click on the article, and then the writer would have to get a real job, that produces some actual value.
  13. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Invictus2017 in Veganism under Objectivism   
    "Rights" is not a floating abstraction.  It arises from a consideration of what humans require to live, what this implies about the proper society for humans, and what each individual should do in such a society.  One of the essential facts relied on in the derivation of rights is that humans survive by means of the use of their rational faculty.  Take away that fact and the derivation falls apart.  Thus, unless an organism survives by means of reason, it cannot be said to have rights.
  14. Like
    Craig24 reacted to gio in Questions about Free Will and Morality   
    Ayn Rand answered exactly your question in her course The Art of Non-fiction. The question was: "Doesn't free will contradict the idea that man has a specific identity?"
  15. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Gus Van Horn blog in Reblogged:College(-Aged) Athletes Should Be Paid   
    "Never," is my reply to the following question, which serves as the title of an editorial from the Charlotte Observer: "When will NCAA be done exploiting athletes?" That is why the NCAA must ultimately be done away with. The immoral and impractical notion that money is evil -- generally or from athletic competition particularly -- will always lead to riding the backs of the productive. Those with consciences will be usually be suckered into supporting such a setup and those without will gleefully take advantage of them, the indifferent, and any less-powerful wanna-bes, too. The good and bad news from the piece follow below, within the concluding paragraph:

    The good news is that we are now speaking openly of compensating college-aged athletes. The bad is that we continue doing so on the unimaginative premise that they must play for college teams. Fortunately, we have the counterexamples of European soccer abroad and Pacific Pro Football at home to help people see that there are far better ways -- morally and practically -- to foster young athletes. The (American) football development league starts play this summer.

    It's about time!

    -- CAV Link to Original
  16. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Grames in Neuromarketing and choice   
    To be fair, it takes a very active mind to be always on guard against various advertising persuasion techniques and to deliberately disregard them after identifying them.  Some are hard to resist even after identifying them.  As most people aren't that mentally active and no one is on guard at all times then advertising can have some dependable level of success with a large number of exposures.
    My point is that it is possible for people to have free will and choose to not exercise it at all times.
  17. Like
    Craig24 reacted to Grames in The Anti-Concept of Anti-Reference; Paradox   
    I mean exactly that.  Epistemology teaches how one "should" know, not how one "does" know.  "Knowing" here being an active process, and everyone having near complete, total mental freedom, it is therefore a choice to know.  First comes the choice to know, then logically afterward comes the attempt to know and the testing against reality.  Choosing to know is the essence of volition.
  18. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from dream_weaver in Universals   
    Is it proper to say that individual trees are not concepts they are just trees but the concept tree objectively refers to the particular trees?  In the same way, a similarity (the common denominator that makes a tree a tree) is not a universal it is just a similarity but the universal (treeness) objectively refers to the similarity.   Is that really all that hard when you think about it?  
  19. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from DonAthos in Universals   
    Is it proper to say that individual trees are not concepts they are just trees but the concept tree objectively refers to the particular trees?  In the same way, a similarity (the common denominator that makes a tree a tree) is not a universal it is just a similarity but the universal (treeness) objectively refers to the similarity.   Is that really all that hard when you think about it?  
  20. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from epistemologue in The Law of Identity   
    Ok but there are allegedly conscious states about the following: God, near death experience, astral projection, reincarnation.  That's just off the top of my head.  Isn't it special pleading to make sex transitioning an exception?   You're an Objectivist for crying out loud.  Act like one.   
  21. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from CartsBeforeHorses in How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars   
    I'll denounce white supremacy until it goes away but what do I after that?  The left is not going to believe me and they will call me a racist because I'm not one of them.  
  22. Like
    Craig24 reacted to JASKN in How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars   
    "It's OK to be white" is what flashes through my mind when halfwit protesters scream that all white people are somehow guilty of anything and it gets ongoing attention from media organizations. It's not something I would think otherwise. And no, "the protesters" are not "black people." It's any screaming idiot.
  23. Like
    Craig24 reacted to MisterSwig in A Complex Standard of Value   
    There has been some great discussion about values lately, and so I'd like to present a brief case for my notion of a complex standard of value. Any feedback or criticism would be appreciated. This is only the beginning of a work in progress.
    I start with the idea that humans have three basic aspects: the physical, the mental, and the biological.  Also, for each aspect we can hold a separate standard of value. For the physical it's pleasure over pain; for the mental, it's knowledge over ignorance; and for the biological, it's health over sickness.
    Next, many people seem to believe that man is primarily one of these aspects, while the others are secondary. They argue for what I call a simple standard of value. If man is primarily physical, then his standard of value is pleasure. If he's primarily mental, then his standard is knowledge. And if man is primarily biological, then the standard is health. I call such positions the Simple Man Fallacy. It means taking the standard of value for one aspect of man and applying it to the whole person. I suppose it's an example of the fallacy of composition.
    I believe it is critical that we form a complex standard of value which integrates the three standards of man's existence: pleasure, knowledge, and health. Rand of course argued for the standard of value being man's life. But there is much confusion over what that means precisely. She said it means: "that which is required for man's survival qua man." And what does that mean? She explained:
    This is a complex answer that is difficult to digest. For example, how do we figure out which terms, methods, conditions and goals are required for our survival as a rational being? Well, to answer that question, I suggest we consider in equal measure the three basic aspects of our existence: the physical, the mental, and the biological. We should formulate a complex standard of value which integrates our critical needs for pleasure, knowledge, and health.
  24. Like
    Craig24 reacted to MisterSwig in Truth as Disvalue   
    Nearly every moralist considers survival, but not their personal, earthly survival. They act instead for the survival of the tribe or the group, or the survival of their eternal soul in the afterlife. Survival is continued existence. If people don't have an objective grasp of existence, then they won't pick an objective standard of value. They'll think of the tribe or the eternal soul as an existent that survives forever and is thus most worthy of being the standard of value.
  25. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from Grames in How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars   
    "It's ok to be white" does not mean "the white race is the finest race".  What this White Supremacist Church believes isn't my problem and it isn't yours either.  Like I said, if you encounter a group of neo nazis, tell them where they can go.  Use concepts honestly.  You know what the word "selfish" actually means.  Do you dispense with the term "selfish" because the broader culture takes it to be synonymous with evil?    
  • Create New...