Greebo
-
Posts
1458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Greebo
-
-
"Fear, guilt and the quest for pity combine to set the trend of art in the same direction, in order to express, justify and rationalize the artists’ own feelings. To justify a chronic fear, one has to portray existence as evil; to escape from guilt and arouse pity, one has to portray man as impotent and innately loathsome. Hence the competition among modern artists to find ever lower levels of depravity and ever higher degrees of mawkishness—a competition to shock the public out of its wits and jerk its tears. Hence the frantic search for misery, the descent from compassionate studies of alcoholism and sexual perversion to dope, incest, psychosis, murder, cannibalism."
http://aynrandlexico...modern_art.html
Thanks to everyone for answering my first question, though I do wonder how incest is wrong (Unfortunately, I couldn't on an easy Google find evidence that Oism opposes polygamy. Should that mean it supports it?
That isn't much of an answer to my question two, since the context of incest in that quote is not immediately clear. One cannot discern from that paragraph whether one is talking about two adult cousins who've chosen to become lovers, or a father sexually assaulting his pre-adolescent child.
-
Yes, there were loopholes in this particular question, but exploiting them misses the point. Someone asking you this question will respond to every answer you give with: "Ok, but imagine that that's not possible in that situation for reason X."
The goal of the question is to present you with a situation in which every action you can take is associated with something terrible, to get you to give one of those terrible answers as the correct one, and then to drop context and imply that Objectivism is bad because it supports the terrible action you chose, or that it's bad because you couldn't give an answer.
The problem is not with Objectivism's answer to any question of this type, but with the expectation of the person who's asking it, which is that a good philosophy will be able to make a really bad hypothetical situation seem awesome.
Winner winner chicken dinner.
You put this much better than I would have.
-
Not at all. You know these escapes were planned intricately, right? People wouldn't have put their lives on the line if they weren't. Leaders gave babies "sleeping powder" along the way to prevent them from crying.An excellent solution, but not one presented in the constructed hypothetical false-trap dichotomy of the question.
And really, not an unrealistic possibility - if you never saw the series finale of M*A*S*H you should watch it - that very situation (crying baby, enemy at hand) is examined.
-
Question 1: The entire situation is not a rational one - you're escaping for your lives from an immoral slave based society. No moral (ie rational) option is available - its down to survival. In such situations, the cold algebra of survival suggests killing the baby is the best course of action.
Question 2: Please cite the evidence that such a conclusion has been reached?
-
Should there be restrictions on speech? I'm not talking about in someone's home (they can tell you to leave), but anywhere (the government uses force against you). For example, should you be punished for writing a letter to the president that says "I'm gonna kill you!"? What about "slander"?
Threats are not "speech" in either an epistemological or a constitutional sense - threats are force.
Slander - deliberate falsehoods about another person - are also force. They cause harm to a person's reputation with no basis in reality.
Speech means the expression of ideas - restriction of speech refers to limiting the right of someone to attempt to persuade another person. It doesn't mean standing up in a crowded room and shouting fire in order to cause a panic which could kill someone.
-
First of all, the sword statement is biblical. If it's in A.S., Rand used it to make a point.
That said you're kind of dropping context. The "taking of the sword" to which Rand objects is the use of INITIATED force to fulfill one's wishes.
Being prepared to defend yourself, studying martial arts, sparring to develop skills, etc - these are not uses of force as it is meant in Objectivism. Using a gun to protect your home certainly IS force - but it's retaliatory, not initiated.
-
This is definitely true with respect to transportation. However, it's not for direct subsidies--it's far easier to avoid those than the transportation subsidies.
True, but then again, NOBODY pays "no" taxes. Some people pay no federal income tax, true, but there is no avoiding taxes overall.
I wouldn't hesitate to take a tax break for anything I qualify for - solar panels, whatever. (Of course I *DO* pay federal income taxes as it is...)
On the other hand, I *wont* rent any of my rental properties out to section 8 - because the section 8 people will pay me more than the free market will - giving me a profit my fellow landlords don't get, at taxpayer expense.
-
However, what about those who don't pay any taxes? Should they accept subsidies/use amtrak. For example, suppose I'm unemployed and pay no taxes and I set up some solar panels on my roof and get a subsidy for it. Is this moral?
The question assumes an alternative exists.
It does not, at present.
Roads, Rails and Runways are all subsidized with money collected by threat of force. One cannot travel freely without benefiting from these ill gotten gains. No moral choice is available, so no definitive "should" can really be stated.
-
Yes, he's technically right - it's his company, and he can run it like he wants.
But he doesn't own you, as you seem to know - and if he's so foolish as to consider simple ownership as being akin to having all the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed as an owner, then well - I think it was Andrew Carnegie who said something about not being smart so much as being able to hire smart people.
His loss.
-
Based on your description (which is, for the record, one sided) your director is encouraging you to engage in a transaction in bad faith. You and he both know that if you sell this client this product, which has a *SPECIFIC* intent (to determine the viability of future services), you're selling him a pre-determined outcome. You already know the result of the "research" before you do it, which means it isn't research at all, it's a fake.
Your director wants the $2,000 - but if he deliberately bilks the client, he will be harming his long term interests because that client will (or at least may) figure out he was conned - (and I'd use that exact word to clarify to the director exactly what he's proposing), and so in addition to the much more serious issue of corrupting the integrity of the business (which your boss may not see as the value it really is), your bilked customer can do SERIOUS HARM to your company's reputation by simple word of mouth.
Now - as for you as an individual - since you know the above, you know that if you engage in this action, you'll be deliberately conning a customer, corrupting your own integrity.
So to answer your question - "Would an Objectivist be ok with this?" The answer is a resounding, absolute, unequivocal - NO.
And the second one - what would an Objectivist do? Well *I* would:
1) Immediately start seeking another position elsewhere, just in case.
2) Lay the cards on the table with the boss - Inform him that his intentions are in bad faith, stand to harm the company long term and go against your own ethical code. (This is why you do #1 - cause this may well cost you your job, but save you your integrity)
3) IF and only if the Boss refuses to pursue this line of bad conduct, stay with the company. You cannot in good conscience choose to stay there if he simply lets you off the hook and then screws the customer.
4) If the boss insists on doing this - then tell the customer, "You don't need this service, its a waste of money for you, and I cannot in good conscience recommend you do it. If you choose to do it anyway, at least you do it knowing it was a waste of money instead of wrongly thinking you'd be getting good value." - - If #2 doesn't, #4 will cost you your job - but again, save your integrity.
-
Little confused - was your BF your BF at the time you had this other fling?
From your descriptions, it sounds like there are deeper issues here that won't be healthy in a long term relationship. He's got issues but I'm talking more about you and how you seem determined to change/fix him.
That's not healthy, or realistic.
-
I joined this forum to get some insight on dating an objectivist. After meeting this man and forming our friendship, ideas, etc. I discover his values and virtues to be an objectivist. I find it very interesting to learn and never shy away from discovering new things. I enjoy learning from his values on objectivism, and clearly have a long way to go before I gain a vast knowledge of it. We do get along great and have the best time together, however philosophy gets to be a bit overwhelming for myself. My question is how do I date an objectivist when I am not? I welcome the challange with each question that is fired at me and answer truthfully. The "drilling" does get tiresome at times and sometimes I may not have an answer for things. I'm okay with it, he is not. We do not agree on all aspects of subject matter. We will agree to disagree, but he continues to right "his" right and trys to presude me to his beliefs. So if we disagree, why can't we agree that we view them differently and move on? Any ideas or tips on dating the objectivist? Dating someone different is not going to happen, we like eachother too much. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this and respond.
I'm an Objectivist and my wife is not. We don't agree on every minor detail - but on the major principles that matter in our relationship, we agree.
I don't think your issue is that he's an Objectivist - per se. There's plenty of people of other philosophies that feel this need to push those closest to them to be like minded with them - and at one time in my life, I was one of those, well, frankly, jerks. Fortunately for me, my wife is able to let me know when I'm crossing the line - she's a strong woman who can stand up to me when I get a little overly intense.
BTW I'm not saying HE'S a jerk - just that he's got the potential to be enough of one if he's not careful that it will ultimately push you away.
He has to learn to respect your boundaries - and to allow you to reach your own conclusions in your own time. O'ism demands that we all check our own premises, not that we force others to do so.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If you have, then refer him to how both Dagny dealt with Hank when Hank expressed his own self-loathing after their first night together, and equally how John Galt never tried to push his way of thinking on Dagny. With Dagny and Hank, she never told him why he was wrong, she just told him where SHE stood in the affair, and with John and Dagny, he stated his positions on matters but left her the freedom to choose for herself, and in neither case did Hank's failure to recognize his errors of reasoning or Dagny's failure to recognize hers change the regard that the other held for them each in turn.
Hope that makes sense.
-
So here s a bunch of questions i have for you guys.
1) Where does money come from?
Well enough answered by others.
2) Why do most objectivists say that altruism /socialism/communism etc is wrong?Isn't that equally intellectually dishonest as saying that my religion is right, and yours is wrong.
If you accept the claim simply on faith, yes. Any religious argument ultimately boils down to, "Someone told me to believe this so I do." Any "objectivist" who believes in Objectivism simply on faith isn't an Objectivist.
Objectivism says, "Here's what we've concluded, here's the arguments we used to reach the conclusions, here's the premises upon which those arguments rest, and here's the arguments showing why those premises are true. Study them, analyze them, and evaluate their accuracy for yourself." To be an Objecivist, you must always check your premises, first and foremost, and never accept anything "on faith" just cause Ayn Rand said it.
3)I have seen some threads about free will and they usually start like this:"I ve heard something about determinism and i dont have a counter argument."
Reading between the lines that would mean that you have some facts and cannot accept them because you dont like them. Isnt that simply not reasonable?
This is not a question about Objectivism. This is a question about "some posts".
Furthermore, there is a difference between rejecting an argument because one doesn't like it and rejecting it because reason contradicts the argument. A person who is not well versed in Objectivism will likely not have the information necessary to rebuke certain rational sounding arguments posed by those who subscribe to a different philosophy. Coming here to ask for help in understanding 1) if, and 2) why such an argument is wrong is not simply rejecting said argument out of hand. It is checking one's premises. Said person may ultimately conclude that O'ism is actually wrong. We, of course, would disagree, but each person must evaluate their own premises in the end.
4)Why is Ayn Rands work consideren basically a bible?Does that mean objectivism cannot improve(because, lets face it, it isn't perfect)?
Not a question, a foregone conclusion that begs the question. First, support your claim that Rand's works are considered to be Biblical in nature. Second, support your claim that Objectivism, which is a foundational framework philosophy, is in error in some manner.
-
I wonder why no one has challenged this yet, but I have a pretty good idea as to why.
Cause it was posted on Saturday and you replied on a Sunday?
-
Not to be a jackass or someone who only makes excuses.
However, a million grammar and English courses are only going to be about as productive as pissing in the wind.
Yep, you're making excuses.
I lack the ability to maintain great grammar.Cultivate it.
In fact, in order to make relevant post on most forums, I must totally forsake grammar in order to post before the thread is totally irrelevant. Believe me, I've taken more English courses than you'd probably realize.I am a Comp Sci major and I would love to be a programmer. I am in Data Structures this semester and have decided to at least finish this semester..
Listen, I'm an older you, with one exception. See, I don't have a degree either, but I have a successful career which includes a 15 year history as a Consultant where my advice was given to major company IT departments like T. Rowe Price, Legg Mason, (then) Blue Cross/Blue Shield (now Carefirst), Aon, and quite a few more. I've sat on a hell of a lot of interviews in my consulting career as a candidate, and on even more interviews on the Interviewer side as a reviewer of potential candidates.
I've also been posting on computer message boards since before the internet was known to more than the military and a few cutting edge Computer Science departments.
I assure you - if you assume a "piss on Grammar" mindset, you will do more to hamper your own potential future than the lack of degree ever would.
-
There were no conditions on the bonds, they are mine and have been mine for 8 years now. I have shared my concern many times with him.
I guess I'll sell them to him with warning. Historically when a country hits it's ' take what you can and run ' stages defaulting on bonds is it's first move, so there is really no warning other than 'things are really bad'.
It has been about a year since I've discussed selling them with him so perhaps he has changed his mind about wanting them. I brought the topic up because I intend to sell them this week and wanted some opinions so I could decide if I should even mention it to him at all.
I'll ask again if he wants them and do that if he does.
I think this is wise. I'd simply say, "Dad, I really would prefer that you didn't buy them because I think they're going to end up as junk but if you want them, they're yours."
And leave it at that. And regardless of who purchases them eventually, invest the proceeds wisely.
-
There is no duty to do anything of the sort. Let the buyer research the situation on their own. There is no duty, Kantian or otherwise, to offer the consumer any information about the product than what you as a seller would like to put forward.
Well, first off, I suppose the concept of full disclosure is alien to you?
But that isn't the sense in which I was using the word "duty" (and btw, there is a reason I put it in quotes).
But it is not to him that I wish to speak. I am speaking to those among you who have retained some sovereign shred of their soul, unsold and unstamped: ‘-to the order of others.’ If, in the chaos of the motives that have made you listen to the radio tonight, there was an honest, rational desire to learn what is wrong with the world, you are the man whom I wished to address. By the rules and terms of my code, one owes a rational statement to those whom it does concern and who’re making an effort to know. Those who’re making an effort to fall to understand me, are not a concern of mine.It was along this sense that I used the word.
-
Islam has hardly received the pounding it deserves, it has rather been given a polite speaking to about OUR "faults" and attempts at appeasement.
You realize, I hope, that this has no relevance to anything I said in the previous post.
That is why we must endorse 9/11 as both a day of Remembrance and a day of Education.I do agree with this.
You may celebrate America's founding as you like, as merely a day for fireworks apparently as you seem to have trouble understanding its Republican virtues for, you know, Founding the Republic!Considering that I just asked you to clarify what meaning you intended with the word "Republic", this response seems particularly ridiculous. Our "Republican Values" didn't emerge at the start of the Revolutionary War - they were a result of the Continental Congress which didn't take place until after we'd WON our independence.
You may also choose to remember 9-11 as merely a tragedy while other people mark it in a more productive fashion.Ah, good, you've added ad hominem to your repertoire. That along with non-sequitor has you up to three so far.
Now do you want to actually address my points?
-
My father saved up money for me to go to college in the form of US savings bonds. When I went away to school I was given the bonds. After school was over I ended up with about 11,000 dollars in high interest savings bonds, 7.5% and higher. That is the value if sold today, not the marked value.
Well, because of my understanding of the current state of the US economy, my desire to get out of US Bonds is very high. I told my father I intended to sell them and invest in something I felt was safer. He asked me to sell them to him, as 7.5 - 11% interest on this safe of an investment is impossible elsewhere.
I feel that if I sell him the bonds, he will lose most, if not all the money in them. I do not know this of course, but I am positive that bonds of any interest are bad investments. I love my father and do not want him to lose money.
Admirable, but you do not have a crystal ball and cannot be sure of the outcome. I do not share the popular opinion (aka Chicken Little) that we're headed into Atlas Shrugged like conditions in the near future.
The only question here is were the bonds really and truly "given" to you? Or were they "given with strings"? I think you need to ask your father (more tactfully, of course) to clarify his intentions when he gave them to you.
If they are truly yours then ultimately the choice is yours and the choices of your father are not your responsibility. At most you have a "duty" to share your concerns with him before agreeing to the exchange. As long as you know he knows what you think of the bonds, if he then buys them from you, that's on his head, not yours. Your desire to protect him is admirable, but like you, he's a grown-up and can make his own choices.
If he's willing to buy them from you and it makes him happy to do so, and costs you nothing (nothing that's actually yours) to do so, then that's as good a course of action as any.
-
Dates are marked and remembered for a particular purpose. The Revolutionary War marked the triumph of Republican values and is still remembered by many for this.
If you mean "The Fourth of July", it's remembered for the day we declared our independence. The intended context of your use of the word "Republican" is unclear to me here. Do you mean "Republican" as in "The Republic" or as in the political party that didn't exist on July 4, 1776?
9-11 marked a triumph of Islam, we should remember that well and use the day to educate ourselves about the threat.December 7th, 1941 marked a triumph of Japan. We remember it to this day, long after that triumph was shoved up their collective rear ends. We remember it not with anger and rage but with sadness over the tragic loss.
Or perhaps we should celebrate Islam?False dichotomy. Those are not the only alternatives.
How one chooses to remember 9/11 is a personal choice. I choose to remember it as a tragic day of loss and grief - one which I was fortunate to find that my father in law (now ex) survived (worked at the Pentagon).
-
In reality, of course, 9/11 should be a day of rage. It should be a day of learning about, seeking vengeance against, and triumphing over, the enemy jihadis.
Unsupported assertion.
Defend please.
-
I've learned the hardware the managers try to string employee's along..
I think you meant:
"I've learned the hard way that managers try to string employees along..."
If you wish to get a well paying job working for someone else that doesn't primarily require manual labor, then I'd encourage you to remain in school at least long enough to take some additional English Language courses.
-
Not an expert, and not laying a charge of fraud here by any means, just observing that the signature is dubious compared with numerous other and seemingly more credible signatures found online. Specifically the y in Ayn and other subtle differences in the n's.
Has the letter been authenticated?
-
You don't try to back your assumption with reasoning.
I have presented you with a conclusion, not an assumption. That I have not spelled out every detail for you in little dots you can easily follow is not the same as no such logical connection existing. This is an online forum - it is not an effective medium for teaching the whole of Objectivism - it is an effective medium for elaborating on specific points.
If you want the full argument you can find it in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" - concisely and directly spelled out for you point by point. If you ask me what the reasoning is, I might take the time to spell it out FOR You - but if you just decide I'm assuming with your first statement, then I'm not going to waste much time on this because you're still jumping to conclusions instead of checking your premises.
I want to hear your ideas. I don't want to hear unsupported statements. When you say something like my "hypothetical is a fringe circumstance," I want to know how you came to that conclusion. If you cant give me a reason...your not really making a valid argument and therefore your statements are not worth considering. Sorry, just saying.It is a fringe scenario because the majority of people by and large on a daily basis do NOT get lost in the woods and depend on one other person's talents combined to make it out. Less than 1/10 of 1 percent of people on a daily basis end up in that situation. Ergo - fringe.
"Sacrifice is voluntary and based on the relative values because.............................................." see how the most important part is missing.You mean you don't know that sacrifice is voluntary, or why it's based on relative values? The latter is simply the definition - a sacrifice is giving up something of value for something else of less or no value. The former should be self evident.
"Taxes are not voluntary and are based on someone else's force because....................................." the important part is missing again, the only part that is worth reading.
Again - self evident. Fail to file your taxes for a few years if you don't believe there's force involved.
If taxes are based on democratic consensus, how is that force? It might be force to the minority, but it is not force to everyone because many people want to contribute because they believe that benefiting their community benefit's themselves.So if the majority of whites believe that blacks should be enslaved and imprison, torture and/or kill those who fail to comply, that's not force, because the majority so voted?
Pure Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
More kids with educations and health-care and places to go after school, less kids in gangs, less desperate and ignorant acts. You probably disagree, but we don't care, we will force you to do it anyway because we are the majority and we can.
Thank you for proving my point.
I'm not saying that to be a troll, really. Its just a fact. But anyway...I prefer philosophy, over politics.That you think the two can be separated reveals a big big flaw in your epistemology.
Underground Railroad and Incest
in Ethics
Posted
Point of order. We were not made. Period.
An arguably questionable claim as well.
Argument from emotion.
Where two consenting adults are concerned, the potential emotional anguish of other family members with boundary issues does not constitute an obligation on the would-be couple not to couple.