Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Grames

  1. I am coming around to this viewpoint as well. For the record, I am also in favor of American jurisprudence and legislation concerning public accommodations (that it is not the owners right to refuse service on trains, buses or hotels on the basis of irrational racial prejudice). These are closely related areas and it is consistent to come to the same conclusion with respect to both.
  2. North American Indians, Aztecs, Incas. Native Hawaiians. The Norman invasion of Anglo-Saxon England. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Celtic England. The Mongol invasion and domination of Han China. The destruction of the previous neanderthal population of the world by modern humans.
  3. Grames

    Which Eternity?

    In principle it is a matter of being methodical, just like forming the concept of zero when in fact no one can ever perceive directly an absence. Absence requires at least a memory of a prior presence. Absence or zero is hierarchically dependent as a concept on a prior concept of some positive direct and simple presence. The unknown and the unknowable are concepts formed in hindsight based on the fact that things are now known that were once unknown, and projecting that into the future to speculate that more remains to be learned, the still unknown. The unknowable is simply a statement akin to "you can't get there from here", meaning that there is no causal connection or path to travel to get from the present state of knowledge to that unknowable, and that is what makes it unknowable. Judgements about what is unknowable require some prior knowledge of methods of investigation and their limitations; what is unknowable obviously cannot be self-evident.
  4. "It to be itself" is very similar to "A is A". For a thing to be itself does not require any awareness at all. Awareness is secondary to and dependent upon prior existing things.
  5. I want a broader theory of politics than Rand left us without abandoning any of what she did leave us. So yes I'm going correct any perceived weaknesses or missing elements in Hazony's theory by filling with the stronger foundation of Rand's work. The end result won't be Hazony's theory anymore. I suppose it would be mine, based on Rand and Hazony.
  6. This is an empirical approach not an exercise in rationalism. One can observe actual human beings and observe how they speak and act with regard to "responsibilities" and then investigate what those are and what causes them. With enough observations and a diverse sampling one can then engage in measurement omission and getting to an essence of the concept as used by actual human beings. I claim that it is possible to objectively investigate even a relatively high level concept such as responsibility. By Peikoff's principle of two definitions there should be both an objective and a normative definition for the concept.
  7. Hitler isn't a nationalist because he wanted to de facto restore the Holy Roman Empire but with his idiosyncratic racial theory substituting for holiness. Bertrand Russell was strong D in Peikoff's D.I.M. scheme, of course he was an anarchist. The question is to what degree was he an intrinsicist? Intrinsicism is necessary to move from claiming to know a truth to imposing it on others. Stalin and Jefferson indeed both thought they grasped universal truths, but different ones. Jefferson would not approve of compulsion in matters of conscience which makes him better than your ordinary theist who is almost automatically intrinsicist. Jefferson was a deist.
  8. You wrote " Hazony's own "tribe and family" collectivism" and the substance of my reply is against the characterization of family and tribe as collectivism, Hazony's or anyone else's. An empirical description of what actually exists is not a normative theory of what should exist. Collectivism is a normative theory. Hazony's description of the social bonds of family and tribe is empirical. You are certainly entitled to critique it as false in one way or another but you are committing a category error with this attempt.
  9. "Natural rights theory" is exactly the kind of intrinsicism invented to justify the theory of rights when the objective justification is unavailable because objectivity was not yet fully conceptualized. And if one's theory of rights is intrinsically justified then one can impose that value upon the entire world, from the deserts of Arabia to the jungles of Vietnam to the mountains of Afghanistan, and the people there can be expected to welcome their liberation and convert to the program upon being enlightened. Liberalism based upon natural rights theory is now in hindsight obviously false and a failure. Which is not to say that rights are false or forever unjustifiable, just that it does matter how one goes about doing it. Rand showed the way, and it isn't natural it is objective. No, only Rand tried to teach that universals were epistemological. All other versions of universals were metaphysical or extra-dimensional (enabling intrinsic value theory). Perhaps that last sentence makes more sense if you keep that in mind. {edit for addition} So any broad claim held to be universally true was held to be applicable to everyone, even foreigners in distant lands speaking foreign languages and worshipping alien gods. This is just recapitulating Peikoff in regard to how a universal cast as intrinsicism would then justifies using force to coerce people to be good, because if the good is not relative to one's consciousness then understanding and consent have no role to play. This is not offered in a normative sense of theory but as a neutral objective observation of what actually happens in real people around the world and throughout history. That there is such a thing as human nature implies that humans have intrinsic attributes. The affirmation that existence implies identity and definite attributes is Objectivism, not Hazony. Intrinsicism as used in Objectivism refers to the principle of asserting knowledge can exist without knowers or values without valuers. An attempt to identify human nature is necessarily universal to all humans and is going to identify intrinsic attributes, but that doesn't come near to being intrinsicism even if wrong.
  10. Journo's article was superficial and bad. (1) The usual path from universal truths to imperialism is through an intrinsic value theory. Objective value theory was only discovered by Rand so historically it has been impossible to avoid the error of moving from universals in epistemology to universals in politics. (2) Hazony's critique of rationalist politics and more empirical explanation of what politics actually consists of does not lead straight to collectivism anymore than Rand's system leads straight to a gas chamber (referencing the infamous National Review review of Atlas Shrugged). (3) An objective inquiry into the philosophy of politics should not be baking the correct answer (individual freedom) into the framing of the field's foundational questions. I find Hazony's classifications clarifying and more objective than the traditional misconceptions and anti-concepts.
  11. Neither stings of words nor statements refer to reality on their own. Some intelligent agent (persons, some animals, possibly Artificial Intelligence someday) must interpret the words or statement to referents, and that linkage imbues the statement with meaning.
  12. Entanglement does not transfer information in violation of relativity.
  13. Horizontal integration is the opposite of compartmentalization. What makes this kind of integration specifically horizontal is that it is not hierarchical reduction. Example of dodging the need to horizontally integrate in ethics: Honesty again: I have to take in food. I don't have any. To correspond with reality, Ill take yours. But productiveness is how to get food. "But productiveness is next semester." This example shows that honesty and productiveness need to be integrated, but one is not derived from the other. In learning what is honesty one does not need to learn productivity. In learning how to use the concept of honesty (and how not to use it) to reason one does need the concept of productivity.
  14. Or when a dog returns to its food dish, it does not need to learn all over again that what is in the dish is food. "Distinctive" is the key adjective there. Man's distinctive method of cognition is used and abused on every aspect of his life (not just food and fear) and is also his chief means of survival.
  15. If that had no effect why would Google bother to do it? I hypothesize that just maybe Google knows how their autocomplete feature is used and relied upon more than you or I do. Why can't objectivity be a value at Google? I mean, anything other than the most frequently searched terms being auto-completely is a deliberate sabotaging of their own service and clearly non-objective in the ordinary arithmetic sense of objectivity.
  16. Yes it can, because thoughts are matter. Being the same kind of thing, there is no mysterious gap between mind and matter. Physical contact makes it possible for the matter of the hand to move when commanded by your mind, and if you walked over and pushed on the tree it would move too (at least shake a little if you were big enough).
  17. That article gives utopian universalist objections. He wants to jump to the "final destination of humanity" without knowing what that might be and without any intermediate transitional stages. He wants to abolish war totally and forever, just like every imperialist utopian in history. This author, Néstor de Buen, had read Hazony and still couldn't resist the call of utopian universalism. Nationalism isn't necessarily the final destination of humanity and it isn't going to abolish war. Any schemes that have claimed either have so far been disastrously murderous lies.
  18. Well you might be onto something in a way. Given that the state of the art in physics holds that the vacuum is not empty but filled with fields and virtual particles it is a fair interpretation that the spatial attributes of those fields and virtual particles is what we abstract to form the concept of space. The fields and virtual particles are of course imperceptible to unaided human senses so the abstraction is hardwired into our means of perception. A lecture to the public given at The Royal Institution on the topic of Quantum Field Theory: Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe - with David Tong with a Q&A session.
  19. So. Is it a fair understanding of your statement that the concepts space and time are reifications, but the attributes spatial and temporal are not?
  20. Appeals to incoherence are incoherent once an omnipotent God is stipulated as a premise.
  21. Physical ought to mean merely causal for the philosophically minded, or else one run's the risk of committing oneself to dictating what the ontology of the universe is from a bedroom or porcelain throne based on a non-physicist understanding of physics.
  22. Location (x,y,z,t) only exists because of whatever is there.
  23. Space-time is not merely a relationship, it is an existent in itself. For all we know it may even be compound existent, made of more fundamental existents. Wikipedia can provide an introduction to the topic with the article Zero-point Energy .
  • Create New...