brian0918

If my goal was to sit on my ass all day and complain about the state of the world then perhaps.

Tanaka: if you're going to downvote my post, at least explain what you found wrong with it.

Just got back from seeing the movie.

I'm sorry to report that it is just bad. It is so bad that it may lead the intelligent but curious person to get the book just to make sense of how the movie is so bad. And since everything in the movie is so forgettable, the book's impending influence might make this theatrical release a net good thing.

Yes, the budget was low, yes, the time was constrained. Both of those show, a lot, and so my main question is: what motive did the producers have at all? It isn't a re-imagining which keeps the original spirit and essential elements intact. It isn't a literal re-telling. I guess I would call it a children's effort to execute a great theatrical masterpiece. It's like a bad stylist dressed a brilliant actress for her Oscars. Tried and true elements of storytelling aren't there. Rand's ideas are mishmashed. Great elements created by Rand are thrown out, like the book's great mystery itself! Galt is given away in the first five minutes, and given away blatantly in the final "scene," which is just a voiceover.

But now I'm starting to nitpick, which isn't necessary unless the movie almost hit the mark, and this one didn't come close.

The positives: The movie didn't completely warp Rand, and it seems to have bumped sales of the actual book, which is great.

The negatives: It doesn't come close to some of Hollywood's worst efforts, and doesn't deserve Rand's name.

Tanaka: if you're going to downvote my post, at least explain what you found wrong with it.

Tanaka: if you're going to downvote my post, at least explain what you found wrong with it.

The legality is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you are liable to be arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in jail, regardless of the actual legality. So long as the government holds the monopoly on both force and legal tender, there is an inherent conflict of interest in that relationship. So you cannot assume you will get a fair trial, regardless of the legality of your actions.

Nevermind the fact that laws are often written in a vague and contradictory way to leave room for just such individuals who attempt to skirt the system. Talk to Irwin Schiff about the difference between what the law says versus what the legal system does.

Because metaphysically, there are no 'certain characteristics' of an object that are more essential to its nature than any other characteristics. We can have a definition for 'cat,' which names the essential differentiating features of cats as X, Y, and Z, but if I point to a particular cat, those features are no more or less essential to the existence of that cat than any other features. Which characteristics are included in a definition is not a decision we make by simply looking at cats in isolation and attempting to find some 'essence;' we make that decision by determining which characteristics most effectively differentiate those units that we want to designate as 'cats' from everything else. It's not a decision we can make based on metaphysics alone. On the metaphysical level, all characteristics of an object are on par with all others; they're simply aspects of that object. This is why essence is not metaphysical.



This is where much of the confusion about O'ist epistemology occurs. A concept refers to the actual objects out in the world, the units, that we seek to unite under the concept. So the concept of 'cat' does not refer to the essentiality of 'catness,' but rather to all actual cats out there, past, present, and future. The referents of a concept are metaphysical, but are not specific. The referents of a concept and the definition of a concept are not the same thing. The definition specifies features that allow us to determine which objects are subsumed under a concept, but it does not and should not specify everything about a concept.

For example, take the concepts of 'gas,' 'liquid,' and 'solid.' Now, a definition of 'liquid' from a few centuries ago would have consisted of, roughly, a state in which matter retains some definite volume but has no fixed shape. Nowadays, however, we would define it and the other states of matter in terms of intermolecular forces. In moving from one definition to the other, the 'essence' that we used to define liquid changed with our expanding knowledge. However, the concept itself did not change. The concept still refers to the same objects that it always has, only now we are able to more accurately specify what about those objects causes us to group them together.



Peikoff most assuredly does not argue that. Take this quote, in which he might appear to be advocating that:



Notice, he does not say that the definition should include all those other characteristics, he is saying that the concept should include them, by referring to whole, complete things in reality and not merely disembodied 'essences.' Now, the definition should still include only select characteristics, but the meaning of the concept should not be 'merely the definition,' but rather the actual units subsumed by the concept. I think you're getting confused by assuming that the meaning of a concept and the definition of a concept are the same thing in the Objectivist view, which they are not (they are in the nominalist view, and they are in fact to most people as well; this is why the Objectivist view of concepts is so commonly misunderstood).



Again, no one in the Objectivist camp is saying that the definition itself needs to include all those characteristics, only that we can never forget that the concept refers to units in reality which have many more characteristics than merely those specified in the definition. Peikoff is arguing that we cannot sever the link between concepts and objects in reality by substituting definitions (which properly focus on essentials) for concepts themselves (which refer to objects with complete characteristics).

And what causes folks to construct long chains of rationalizations disconnected from reality? Bad philosophy?

And how exactly does a big explosion 14 billion years ago imply that the universe had a beginning?

And how exactly does a big explosion 14 billion years ago imply that the universe had a beginning?

And how exactly does a big explosion 14 billion years ago imply that the universe had a beginning?

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

Talent call for short film: Self Hate in America

Project Description:

Self Hate in America is a short film about "Brandon" a child from an upper middle class home accustomed to getting blue ribbons for his 6th place performances. After barely getting his degree in environmental science he is unable to find a job, except as a Greenpeace panhandler. People's lack of generosity, his requisite low pay, and his own lack of a sex life brings him to the end of his rope and he attends a more extremest environmentalist meeting where he hopes to get on this bitch, Ashley. Soon he's befriended by "Sebastian" the groups leader. Sebastien takes him under his wing and soon takes over Brandon's life leading him down an path of anger, hate and murder and finally abandons him because Brandon banged Sebastian's slutty girlfriend, Ashley. To redeem himself as a mindless follower of the group, he tries to free monkeys in a medical research lab where he has to kill the postdoc who had just found a cure for HIV.

Character Description:

Brandon: 20-25 multiracial, (black, Hispanic, and islander; no whites, Asians, or other privileged races), good looking. I'm looking for a talented and professional actor that's willing to challenge himself and work for the earth, because I don't want to share the little money I make.

Compensation: This is a low budget short film because I have no capitol and no one willing to back my poor writing with their money because the man is keeping me down. Compensation will be deferred(and by that I mean, non existent.) All meals, and snacks will be provided by potluck and everyone will receive a dvd copy of the film.

Bloomberg: Japan Nuclear Disaster Caps Decades of Faked Reports, Accidents

Daily Mail ran a story with lots of big photos.
Here is an alleged photo of the crane and spent fuel pool of unit #4 before the accident


Here is photo of the same green painted gantry crane over the spent fuel pool of unit #4 photographed from the air after the accident.


Naked fuel rods exposed to the atmosphere is not the worst case nuclear accident, but it is never supposed to happen.

TEPCO says the spent fuel pool (SFP) of #4 has water in it, but I don't believe them. Gamma radiation shining upward out of the pool caused the helicopters dumping water the other day to bolt extra metal under the seats as shielding for the pilots. If the rods were fully covered there would be no gamma radiation from them.

My house is shaking right now (yes, over 24 hours after the quake). We only had one thing fall at the house, and it wasn't attached to the wall. I was at work when it hit and I can tell you the concrete felt like the deck of a ship in rough seas. Our helicopters looked like bouncing low-riders. The most notable aspect of the quake to me was its duration. I've felt a handful of quakes in Japan, none of which lasted more than 20-30 seconds. Yesterday's quake had to have been at least 2 full minutes.

Some of the guys in my squadron have delivered supplies to the worst areas. They say it looks as bad as the media coverage. The good/bad news is that they didn't see any survivors in need of rescue. I hope this is because Japan has an excellent infrastructure for communication and evacuation, but some news reports say otherwise. I know the major highway running out of Tokyo was shutdown within a few hours, presumably to serve as an evacuation route if necessary. I flew past Yokohama and the southern portion of the Tokyo Bay today - I think the peninsula on the East side of the bay protected Tokyo/Yokohama from the tsunami.

He is attacking a strawman. An Objectivist would not answer "yes" to the second set of questions.

It's not that it is "impossible" to prove an objective reality - it is that it is *nonsensical* to even consider such a feat, let alone to believe it to be a necessary requirement for truth and certainty. The idea of "proof" assumes an objective reality that can be known and understood.

His argument against objective reality consists of words. Those words refer to concepts, which have as their ultimate referents objects in reality. Any statement claiming to refute objective reality must necessarily utilize and assume objective reality.

The moment he opens his mouth and utters a word, or types a word on a keyboard, in order to communicate a meaningful statement to you, he assumes an objective reality that can be known and understood.

One of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables claimed that Cuba banned Michael Moore's Sicko for portraying a "mythical" healthcare system that was far superior to that available in the US. The specific reason for the ban is because Moore highlighted a state-of-the-art hospital which only people with connections and bribe money have access to, and Cuban officials feared this would cause greater resentment from the public.



Also, Moore released a response on his website, claiming that Cuba did not ban Sicko, and that the memo is all a lie to discredit the film and the Cuban healthcare system.

The effects of positive punishment are well understood in behavioral psychology. They create the illusion of effectiveness for the parent(punisher) because the child develops a fear response that is directly associated with the punisher so that they avoid the act only or especially when the punisher is present. For this reason, the punishment acts as a positive reinforcer for the parent because from their perspective, by all appearances it works extremely well. Fear is powerful, but unfortunately is usually accompanied by anger, guilt, and shame which are internalized to different degrees by the child and almost universally results in a lack of trust and a poorer relationship with the parent.

An exception to this is children prior to the age of 3(preconscious) who seem to do better when swatted than their peers. Ostensibly because the pain is directly associated as being a result of their own actions since they have not, by that age, developed the capacity for the necessary differentiation. In other words, they don't understand enough to blame the parent for the act so they just avoid the behavior in the same way that they would a hot stove they had touched. For older children this is not the case.

As bluecherry suggested above, causation is difficult to break apart in human psychology, but as a general rule, children learn how to behave primarily by understanding and seeing what they should do rather than by using a checklist to avoid all of the things they ought not do. That's why focusing on negative behavior tends to reinforce it. It puts it in the forefront of their minds in the same way that telling someone to "NOT think about a rock" immediately conjures up the thought of a rock. A parent paying little attention to bad behavior while showing immense interest(not praise) in good behavior tends to shape the child slowly but surely in a somewhat gentler way, which gets the desired behavior without squashing their delicate little souls.

The important question to ask is whether the goal of parenting is to produce a person who does what is expected of him ought of emotional need or fear of others or whether the goal ought to be the creation of an independent spirit, learning to make choices with reason as their primary guide.

In short, natural consequences teach the child about the world and causation in it, while the consequences you impose teach the child about how you feel about him, and not necessarily in an accurate way.

Your problem is with your definition of sacrifice. It is entirely unhelpful. According to this definition, every single action I take is a sacrifice, because every single action takes time and effort. In economics, the concept of the "opportunity cost" of an action refers to the next-best thing you could have done with the resources it took to take that action. The salient point here is, every single action or purchase has an opportunity cost. Thus, by your definition, every single action taken by everyone is a sacrifice. Can you see why this is an invalid and unhelpful definition?

Rand was very clear with her definition: giving up a greater value for a lesser one. This definition isolates a real and important phenomenon for study and discussion. I don't see why you'd want to redefine it in the way you have.

This is not at all what Rand was saying. Let's pull that quote of hers up again:



Now notice what she says. The country has no national rights, which means that the dictator is not a legitimate form of government and has no right to rule. However, the individual people living under the government still have their own individual rights. Thus, it would be wildly immoral to come in and just start slaughtering everyone. What would be morally acceptable is coming in, deposing the dictatorship, and establishing a government which respects the rights of its citizens. Nowhere in there is there room for what the Spanish did, and the Spanish did not even attempt to establish something that Objectivism would view as legitimate.

Now, your other concern, about whether or not this avenue is the best way to bring change to a country, is very well taken. Oftentimes, deposing a dictator does not do anything for the freedom of the country's inhabitants. If the country's culture does not have the right philosophical currents, it is nearly an impossible task to instill a rights-respecting government. I agree with this statement of yours:



What is important to notice about Rand's stance here is this: freeing the citizens of a foreign country is not the primary reason for invading it. We need a government in order to protect our own rights. That is the sole purpose of government; to protect the rights of its citizens. To that end, the only time it is required of our government to invade another country is when that strategy serves to protect our rights as citizens. It's not primarily about the oppressed peoples, but about the threat their leaders pose to us. Thus, Rand's stance is not an edict to go out and spread freedom and individual rights wherever they are lacking, through invading other countries. That would be an altruistic endeavor. Rather, she is simply highlighting the fact that we are not wronging the dictators of a country if we do decide to invade it. They do not have the right to be dictators in the first place.

You're asking the wrong question. We don't need to examine individual choices and try to parse out what was possible and what was not for the chooser. I don't know how you could even approach a question like that. The argument for the existence of volition is much simpler and more basic; it's an axiomatic basis for any claim of knowledge. Any claim of conceptual knowledge is a claim that the knowledge-holder has performed a conscious act of determining the truth or falsity of a proposition. Defending the existence of knowledge without defending the capability of people to choose to think or not is contradictory.



The fact of volition is axiomatic, and self-evident through introspection. However, how volition actually works is an incredibly complicated scientific question, and furthermore we shouldn't expect it to be simple. There's a big difference between experiencing something working within our own consciousness and understanding enough about human biology to explain how that something works. It's the difference between being able to use our eyes to get around and understanding everything about the human eye, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex.

It certainly does, however the individual you are talking to is not an Objectivist, and has been going in circles debating others for the last 40 pages. Do not take the content of his posts as indicative of the content you should expect from others.

It certainly does, however the individual you are talking to is not an Objectivist, and has been going in circles debating others for the last 40 pages. Do not take the content of his posts as indicative of the content you should expect from others.

Theres quite a bit of epistemological assumptions loaded into all of this, but I'd rather get to the meat of the issue below.
Suffice it to say, I am obviously not here saying:
"Hey guys, wouldn't it be neato if God existed!", so please refrain from the annoying anti-intellectual accusations.
I know many Theists are guilty of it, but I'd appreciate a fair evaluation of MY argument- not theirs.


And I could just as easily say that people run away from the knowledge that there is a God because they are deathly afraid of the implications (some of the fear being warranted, some coming from severe mis-understandings/ false assumptions).
We can accuse each other of basing our beliefs on Subjectivism until we're blue in the face. I'd rather skip that and prove it out.


My goodness. You have described much more about God (in your "God Particle") than I have had the opportunity to get around to in this thread! It's true that there must be something (whether God or "God Particle") which is the source of all other things that ever existed or could exist, which has no "life span", etc...
Let us assume, momentarily, that it is a Particle (an non-personal, non-intelligent, non-volitional thing).
When this particle acted resulting in the creation of other things, did it do so accidentally or on purpose? In other words, if it is the source of all other things and all other motion, then its action could not have been a result of something outside of it acting upon it (nothing else existed to act upon it). Its action also could not have come from some "smaller" particle within it, for then we run into the same problem with this "smaller" particle. What caused it to act?
The action must have come from its own nature as a whole-- meaning its nature must be such that it can act of its own accord-- meaning that it must be volitional-- meaning that it's not just a particle, its a "person" in the sense that it has consciousness and values (which are necessary prerequisites for volition).


Again, that would be the point of this thread. Let us find out.

No. A is A. There are no contradiction. If one understands that there is a God, this idea must simply be integrated without contradiction into the rest of ones knowledge... just like with anything else.


Haha! You have no problem understanding the stupidity of asking this question about your God Particle, but then you fail to understand the silliness in asking it about God.
We are both agreed that there must be some super complex thing which is the source of all things and which, itself, is eternal and thus has no answer to "where did it come from?".
You say its a God Particle. I say its God.


Again, I am obviously not on here arguing for a dismissal of any rational evidence in favor of faith or for an irrational acceptance of an "absurd conclusion".
So I would really appreciate it if you'd drop the straw man, ad hominem stuff. Its been done a million times on this thread and it is VERY old.

Tanaka gave a list above of the kinds of things being referred to. "Physical" is not synonymous with "material" because it includes forces and energy. But in order to avoid the hazard of appearing to dictate what is possible to be discovered in physics it is desirable to have a principle. To be physical is to exist in a causal relationship with some other existent. Non-physical is acausal, meaning magic.

The distinction between "physical" and "existential" is merely different perspectives of the same fact that existence is identity. Identity implies that to exist is to be a certain set of intrinsic attributes, and also implies a certain relation between existents in action.