Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Craig24

Regulars
  • Posts

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Craig24 reacted to AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    OK, you did not care to react to my suggestion to indicate what are your most fundamental objections to Journo’s analysis, among all those you mentioned. Then my next step will be to examine a few of your objections.
    In other words, in your view, NATO should have dissolved itself after the dissolution of USSR and of the Warsaw Pact. Let’s examine the facts.
    a). The Warsaw Pact was created in 1955, as a counterpart to NATO; NATO was created much earlier, in 1949. Then, in logic, if NATO would have been dissolved, then the Warsaw Pact should have been too, but NOT the other way around, as you suggest.
    b). It is not true that NATO was founded "to defend against the Soviet Union". The North Atlantic Treaty specifies that its aim is to guarantee the collective security of its members against any attacks of “third parties”, any “third parties”. After the disappearance of USSR as a potential source of an attack, the other potential sources remained. In fact, ANY third party worldwide could become a danger. Therefore, the disappearance of one danger, even of the main one until then, is NOT a reason to dissolve the Alliance.
    c). On the other hand, shortly after the dissolution of USSR and the fall of Communism, some of the former Communist countries and Soviet republics, in view of their history of relationship with Russia, considered the possibility of joining NATO for defense. According to Wiki, “countries wishing to join must meet certain stringent requirements and complete a multi-step process involving political dialog and military integration”. The process takes long years, a full decade for some.
    d). Moreover, the events after the dissolution of USSR and the fall of Communism clearly demonstrate that the dissolution of NATO would have been an enormous mistake.
    There was indeed at least one assurance made to Gorbachev resembling to these words. But was about something different and very narrow: the deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany (GDR). Namely, in September 1990 it was agreed (in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany) that the reunified Germany is allowed to join NATO, but it was also agreed that no non-German NATO military (and no nuclear weapons) are allowed one inch into the former East Germany (see here)
    The narrative that there were “assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact” about the non-expansion of NATO beyond the reunified Germany seems to originate in the February 2007 Putin’s speech at a Security Conference held in Munich (see here). Here is an excerpt:
     The question remains: were there any assurances above the one mention above, any authorized promises, in whatever binding form, about non-enlargement of NATO to former Communist countries and former Soviet republics?
    Starting with 2007 and amplified by the 2008 Russia’s attack of Georgia and the 2014-2022 war against Ukraine, the question of the reality of a West’s pledge is intensely debated. The debate was fueled by newly discovered documents from Western archives which, according to an article published by the German publication Der Spiegel, November 2009 (see here), support the Russian position. Unfortunately, according to other studies based on the same documents, the opposite conclusion was inferred (see for example one by the Center for strategic and International Studies  here and The Brookings Institution here.) Therefore, the subject is at least disputed.
    What now? The NATO subject was discussed between USSR and the West in 1990 and 1991, at the end of the Gorbachev era, when USSR has not yet fallen. It was not resumed during at least the next 10 years. This means that Gorbachev supervised all the pertinent negotiations. What does he say?
    In October 2014 (after Donbass and Crimea, when Putin invoked again the “broken promises”) Gorbachev gave a long interview to the Moscow based governmental publication Russia Beyond the Headlines (RBTH), a predecessor of RIA Novosti and of Russia Today. Here is the relevant exchange with the reporter: 
    RBTH: "One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”"
    M.Gorbachev: "The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."
    After this, le bare minimum which is certain about the allegedly promised non-enlargement of NATO is that it is strongly disputed.
    But whYNOT presented it as a fact, an essential one, against the Journo's analysis... Elsewhere whYNOT comments:
    Maybe you know a lot more than I do, but is also true whatever you claim to know ? Doesn't seem to be... As most of your other claims on the subject of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And what you claim is, visibly, "common knowledge" only among those who form their opinion by contrasting such diversified sources as Russia Today, TASS and D. Simes' The National Interest...
    Besides: until about 2007 the Russian leadership accepted calmly the enlargement : after Germany (1990), followed Poland+Hungary+Czechia (1999), in 2004 - Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania etc. Even Russia was pondering the possibility to join NATO. There even was a “Russia–NATO Council” (2002, see Wiki) for handling security issues and joint projects. However, Russia aspired to be recognized again as a Great Power and bypass all the “stringent requirements and the passage through a multi-step process”; it aspired to acquire from the very beginning a leading position alongside US, France and UK. This did not work and Putin was, apparently extremely offended and frustrated…
    This conclusion is about NATO leadership intentions, which is something going in people’s heads. Something like that is almost impossible to prove. Moreover, I gave above an alternative explanation which does not postulate sinister intentions. Therefore this conclusion is arbitrary.
    To conclude: I considered the first four of whYNOT's objections to Journo’s analysis. They are NOT based on fact, to say the least. Simply and succinctly stated, they are crap. As usual, unfortunately☹️
  2. Like
    Craig24 reacted to AlexL in About the Russian aggression of Ukraine   
    I make a clear distinction between the "Russia's point of view" (that is Russia's legitimate interests), and Putin's personal interests.
    Russia, and any other country, has a vital interest in its security. This means that it should legitimately be apprehensive about having in its vicinity countries/regimes/alliances with recent history, or a credible present threat, of aggression, territorial expansion and/or subjugation.
    Russia: Looking at Russia's chart and its neighbors, I don't see in its vicinity countries/regimes/blocks with recent history (or a credible present threat) of aggression, territorial expansion and/or subjugation. Not even China, for the near and medium future.
    As for NATO - it does NOT represent, objectively speaking, a credible threat - originated in recent history (or a credible present threat) of aggression, territorial expansion and/or subjugation.
    As for Russia's neighbors : Russia does have a recent history of aggressions, territorial expansion and subjugation, but I don't believe this is inherent to Russia (same for any other country). It depends on the political regime and the personalities at the top. Germany and Japan are clear proof.
    On the other hand, Putin, the current Russia's leader, enacted, during his 20+ years reign:
    - a regime change towards more and more authoritarianism and power grab,
    - and developed a concept of his own about what the Russia's true interest demand: the concept of the "Russian World" (Русский Мир) and the follow-up concept of "Historical Russia" (Историческая Россия). These are not confidential ideas, but ones that Putin publicly expressed in speeches and articles; they can be found on his kremlin.ru presidential site, both in Russian and in English.
    The first concept boil down to the claim that ethnic Russians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians living in the respective countries are in fact the same Russian people which were forcibly separated by the vicissitudes of history. He claims that they all speak the same language, with only minute differences. Also, they have the same religion (Christian Orthodox). He inferred from the above that they should all live in the same country. The tribalist nature of these arguments is plainly visible.
    The second concept, the one of "Historical Russia" expands on the first. It demands that all ethic Russians (meaning also Ukrainians and Byelorussians), wherever they live at present, should all live in the same country, with the same religion and under the same head of state ("prince"). Putin dated precisely when in the past this was the case - end of the 18th century. Regarding its Western borders, this means the whole Baltic, the whole of Belarus and most of Ukraine.
    The above are Putin's own conceptions of Russia's interests - imperialist and tribalist. Accordingly, he ferociously opposes anything that would hinder such plans, the main hindrance being Ukraine acquiring some sort of protection from the West, NATO membership included.
    In conclusion: 
    - Putin has big plans of imperialist nature (which he doesn't even hide !). The implementation of these plans becomes impossible in its main point (Ukraine), if Ukraine can defend itself, alone or in cooperation. 
    - Accession of Ukraine to NATO umbrella (with or without membership) is a danger, but not for Russia, but for Putin, more precisely for the plans he openly announced and that are sketched above. IOW, he opposes NATO expansion to the East not necessarily because he truly believes NATO will attack, occupy and plunder Russia (as Putin and his propaganda machine constantly repeats - including on this OO-sit !), but because it definitively cancels his plans.
    Specific references: upon request. Some might exist only in Russian, but with Google Translate Add-ons it won't be a problem
  3. Like
    Craig24 reacted to AlexL in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative   
    Why not directly to the AI Report ??? Or to a source which is NOT of one of the belligerents ?
    Russia Today is 100% owned by the Russian government, which is party in the conflict. The minimum level of prudence would suggest to find, for yourself, another source. Towards the readers of OO, the minimum level of honesty would be the same - to refer to a source which is not suspect a priori of bias.
    But no, for a strange reason, for years you have been taking your info from RT, you have been educated by it, you foolishly trust it. Your views about the West have been at least influenced, if not defined, by RT, despite of the - residual - skepticism you claim having on it.
  4. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from AlexL in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative   
    In other words you believe that Amnesty International is being bribed in some way to keep their mouth shut about any persecution or genocide?  Is that your claim?  If so, can you prove that?
  5. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from AlexL in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative   
    Oh please!  This looks like a big giant dodge to me.  If you think there's been ongoing persecution against those pesky Russo-Ukrainians just prove it already.  
  6. Like
    Craig24 reacted to AlexL in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative   
    I asked myself a similar question: if Russia knew that Russian-speaking Ukrainians were persecuted and murdered since at least 2014, did they do the usual minimum in such circumstances, which is alerting the relevant international organizations?
    Indeed, Putin's Russia invoked persecutions and genocide when annexing Crimea and during all the Donbass conflict (2014-2022). During the Donbass war and to this day, Putin's propaganda accuses Ukraine of genocide of civilians.
    The first to be alerted should have been the UN Security Council, where the Russian Federation is an important and powerful member. Accordingly, I examined, on the UN SC site, the list of projects of resolution, or other documents, introduced by RF concerning Ukraine. I found none. None whatsoever! (I found some introduced by Ukraine against RF concerning Crimea and Donbass which were vetoed by RF).
    The first project of resolution by Russia concerning Ukraine was introduced shortly after the February 24, 2022 invasion and dealt with an alleged development of bio-weapons by Ukraine in collaboration with US/NATO. RF seem to have withdrawn it, because it was never heard of again...
    On the other hand, the situation in Donbass was permanently monitored, since March 2014, by a "OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine". (OSCE is the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.) It found no major violations of the Laws of war, for example an unusually high proportion of the civilians. This mission was mandated by the 50+ participating countries and the mandate was extended every year by consensus. RF always voted for the extension, which means it had no major objections regarding a lack of objectivity. The Mission was stopped at the end of March 2022 because Russia voted against a new extension.
    The conclusion seems to be that in fact the alleged systematic persecutions and murdering / genocide did not occur and was just another excuse to justify the invasion, along with an alleged imminent attack by Ukraine in Donbass, and many other excuses which were invoked during the 5 months of war but never proved.
    Putin's real motivation seem to be a completely different one.
  7. Like
    Craig24 reacted to AlexL in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative   
    OMG, are you making fun of me?
    I asked you what did Stoltenberg exactly say. And you give me an article from... Russia Today (an a priory dubious publication, as it is by a governmental agency of one of the parties in conflict) with, supposedly, a quote from him, but also with a lot of many other irrelevant claims - I didn't even read. As if RT the only place it can be found!
    Couldn't you give me just the quote? Or you believe that if you refer me to RT, I would be more convinced of its authenticity?😁😁
    I don't dispute the quote you gave: it happens😁 to be correct. Here it is, for reference: 
    It is taken from where you should have quoted it, from the NATO site (see here). Instead, you took it from RT, together with the lying title "NATO's chief lets the cat out of the bag: US-led bloc has ‘been preparing since 2014’ for proxy conflict with Russia" plus other comments...
    Now, you implied that NATO had a plan to perpetrate provocations to induce Putin to invade. Two questions:
    a). How did you infer, from that quote, that NATO had a plan etc.?
    (b). Otherwise, on what other basis do you arrive at that conclusion? 
  8. Like
    Craig24 reacted to AlexL in Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative   
    Yes, when it was about me justifying my own claims, I did. I even accepted to reverse the onus of proof and I examined (and refuted) your claim (it was something about Minsk, see below).
    No. It doesn’t work that way. I made no claims regarding facts (except the two mentioned below, which I proved). I mainly disputed your „facts”. It is up to you, but not simply to source (one can find sources for anything), but to prove.
    AlexL: You ignored my points. Again. 
    Yes, you did it, again! My main point was that during a war it is useless and stupid to expect objective information from sources of the warring sides. This is because one expects them to disseminate propaganda. And I noted that you (seem to) rely systematically on Russian sources belonging to government or related to it.
    Now about the Minsk agreements. I would like to take them off the table once and for all.
    We had in fact two distinct Minsk-related subjects. One was about Putin having signed it (or one of them). The second was about Putin having mentioned the Ukrainian non-compliance as one of the reasons of the February 24, 2022 attack.
    1. Did Putin sign one of the agreements?
    Your initial claim was exactly this: “Minsk deal ... which Putin co-signed, btw”.
    I commented: “(BTW, Putin did NOT co-sign either of the two Minsk agreements; it took me less than 5 minutes to check...)”
    You did not acknowledge your error. It was a secondary point, but now you claim „You already made one wrongful accusation, which I verified from Wiki concerning Putin's presence at Minsk”, as if the dispute was about Putin's presence at Minsk (see here).
    2. Did Putin invoke the Ukrainian non-compliance as one of the reasons of the February attack?
    You correctly assumed that the Minsk Agreements were important for Putin. From this you - wrongly - assumed that he signed them himself – see #1. To stress their importance for Putin, you claim that he was “using Minsk's failure as (one) justification to invade.” You even brought some references to support this, but the proved only that maybe in his head the Minsk non-compliance may have been one of his reasons of the February attack.
    Then I did what I was not legitimately expected to do: I DIS-proved your claim (see here).
    Putin listed the reasons for his „Special Operation” in his speech broadcasted the early morning of the February 24 invasion. I found the very official transcript of his speech on the very official Kremlin site, both in Russian and in English. The words “Minsk”, “accords” or “agreement” are absent... You never addressed this point from that comment of mine, or any other point…
    This seems to be a pattern of behavior, a telling one…
    PS: Besides, about Minsk agreements you made a lot of inexact claims. One of them: “Yelensky… the Minsk treaties he signed” (see here). This is not the moment to mention more of them, but in this Ukraine thread they abound… But you write: “I can't be bothered to validate every trivial detail.” Yeah, detail, right! A flood of unverified “details”… from RT, or RIA Novosti, or from memory failures.
    If you disagree, just tell me, and I will bring some more examples. But I guess you won’t… But I might do it regardless 😉 
    And please address all my points.
  9. Like
    Craig24 got a reaction from Boydstun in Why use the Word “Selfishness” explanation only gets you half way there   
    What I'm seeing here is that you want a single word that covers the false part of the conventional package deal meaning of selfishness.  Let me try something:
    Selfishness = acting to benefit yourself through indifference, negligence or malice towards others.  
    Is there one single word to subsume the red part?  
    ....
    You present quite a challenge.
     
     
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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>
     
  13. 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.  
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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.
     
     
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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?"
     
  24. 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
  25. 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.
     
×
×
  • Create New...