Greebo
-
Posts
1458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Greebo
-
-
Lincoln said in many of his speeches prior to becoming president that he would allow slavery to continue (in the northern states were it existed in 1859 as well as the southern states) in order to preserve the union and felt that if letting slavery continue, it would prevent a war and preserve the union, then he would allow that. He lied.
Lincoln said he would allow slavery to continue if it would preserve the union and prevent war.
Prior to Lincoln's Inauguration, seven states seceded.
By seceding, the union was broken before Lincoln had any ability to prevent it.
How did he lie?
Your logic is faulty.
-
Anti-homosexuality sentiment is NOT rooted in Christianity - it's rooted in Judaism.
Both, actually:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."--1 Corinthians 6:9-10
-
You may find this thread of interest. It deals with the morality of transgender issues.
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...;hl=transgender
-
Really?
Yes - that is to say - you can choose not to think rationally.
Your confusing the figurative with the literal. You can not act without thinking. You can act without thinking rationally through the consequences.Again, by think I mean "think rationally".
Rand is clear on a demarcation between philosophy and science. Being a "product of" does not equate to being "part of," or being "inseparable from."To be the product of something is to be the result of something. Science (pure science) could not exist without the surety of knowledge of epistemology, or the understanding of existence that comes from Metaphysics. Without reason, knowledge and existence, science would be random flailing.
I think you have that backwards. You can choose not to interact, to not put your thoughts into action, as you put it, but I challenge you to choose not to think.No, I meant it literally. Again, to think is to think rationally. Interaction with reality is passive. If you sit perfectly motionless and do absolutely nothing, existence continues to exist, and you along with it, and your interaction by existing continues whether you try to do anything with it or not.
I think you have this one backwards as well. I will agree that science results from man's desire to actively pursue knowledge, rather than passively (in the physical sense) integrating his perceptions, and is thus spurred by his initial attempts at epistemology. But capitalism is the philosophy supporting the "science" of business, not the other way.Capitalism is the application of rational thinking to the trade of value between two entities. Just as the rational thinking scientist was able to experiment before the scientific method was fully defined and understood, so business for mutual benefit was able to take place before the Capitalistic Method was fully understood. When a scientist accepts and implements the Scientific Method fully, he validates his research by founding it on sound, rational principles. When the businessman accepts and implements Capitalism fully - or at least as fully as possible (foregoing the power of pull to the fullest extent possible), he in turn validates his business by founding it on sound, rational principles.
A medicine man may be a sort of experimenter, but he is not a scientist, he is a witch-doctor who attributes his success to mystic powers, not deduction. A mobster is a sort of businessman, but he is not a capitalist, he is a looter who does business by force.
So - is Capitalism the philosophy that supports business? Or the product of a rational philosophy as it applies to the men of action, as science applies to the men of thought?
Regardless, back to my original question, can science be defined as the active pursuit of knowledge, and if so, is it really separable from epistemology?And again, the scientific method is a product of, in part, epistemology. 49 is the product of 7 times 7. 49 is not a part of 7, 7 is a part of 49. A child is the product of its parents - but a child becomes independent of its parents. Likewise, science is not a part of epistemology, epistemology is a part of science. But as DavidOdden said, the specialized knowledge and equipment associated with it make science separate from epistemology.
-
After reading ITOE, it's occurred to me that the description of epistemology therein is a passive one. That is, that while the process of observing, differentiating and integrating entities into a conceptual framework is volitional, the interaction with reality, as described, is a one-way, passive one.
You can choose to not think. You can't choose to stop interacting with reality *and* remain alive, so yes, your interaction with reality is passive. You exist, reality exists, it is, you do not have a choice in that matter other than to choose to cease to exist.
In previous threads I've seen statements supporting the primacy of reality over consciousness, such as "you don't really believe you can change reality by thinking about it?" (paraphrased, from mem) Now, I understood what the point of the question was, and this is not an argument against the primacy of reality, but the real answer to the query is: yes, I do, and I can. I can think about moving my body and in doing so, change reality. Further, I can extend the effects of my movements, to say, mine and refine uranium, etc.. and effect reality in dramatic ways.Thinking isn't acting. When you think about moving your body, you first must put your thought into action. Rand advocated thinking before acting, as opposed to acting before thinking, or acting without thinking.
too lateNow before you start warming up your keyboard on what I've written so far,here comes my question: at a fundamental level, would it be fair to say that epistemology is the internal integration of perceptions of reality, and that science is the active manipulation of reality by a conscious mind, intent on producing an observable effect?Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and understanding. It is the study of what constitutes knowledge and truth, and how one knows that such is knowledge and truth. It is one branch of philosophy.
Science is based on the pure application of reason to what is already established as knowledge to determine new knowledge. Science does not concern itself with how it knows its knowledge is knowledge - science concerns itself with adding TO that knowledge, fundamentally accepting the method of how one proves that knowledge to be true in its basis.
The reason I ask this is that Miss Rand seems intent on separating science from philosophy. In doing so, however, I don't believe she ever defines the fundamental essence of science, which I believe is, roughly stated, poking reality to see what happens.Science is, therefore, not separate from philosophy, but a product of it. Without the philosophy to tell you know you know what you know, how to see that existence exists, and how to apply reason and logic to what you know and what exists, you could not use the scientific method.
The problem I see with separating science from philosophy, given the previous discussion, is that you must then separate active experimentation from epistemology (or am I being too rigid in my demarcations?) I believe that interaction with reality is a crucial part of epistemology. A child unable to interact with reality is probably unlikely to fully form a rational framework of the same.As stated before, you can not choose not to interact with reality. You can only choose not to think while doing so. The broken unit (child) above is not unable to interact with reality, but unable to think.
My reason for asking these questions is that I am a scientist by nature (engineer by profession), and I have a hard time rejecting science as "something other" when we write about epistemology and philosophy.Science is the intellectuals product of rational philosophy as capitalism is the business mans result.
-
I was curious as to the nature of the "Premium Forum", so seeing a link that says, "What is the Premium Forum?", I clicked it. I then got an error message:
The error returned was:Sorry, some required files are missing, if you intended to view a topic, it's possible that it's been moved or deleted. Please go back and try again.
Is this actually the case, or is it possible that, without permission to access the Premium Forum, one does not have the rights to read the thread that defines what the Premium Forum is?
I appear to have been caught with a paraducks, and its making me quackers.
-
from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Objectivism opposes both rationalism and empiricism by stating that knowledge is the product of applying reason to reality.
I understand, but I definitely do not like that we've given the mystics a label which derives from what Objectivists are: Rational!
Ah well, it'll take me some time to get used to substituting "rationalist" for "witch doctor" in my head, but I'll manage.
Thanks!
-
Can someone please explain "rationalism" and why it seems to be used in a negative sense when I see it?
As it derives from rational, I would have thought it to be a positive term in Objectivist terms.
-
Well I'm half-way through Neitzsche's book and I don't get why people like it so much. Sure, there are some nice pieces...
(The soothsayer)
But most of the time I find myself asking: "wtf is he talking about?".
I will have people quote me shit like "to give birth to a dancing star one should have chaos within oneself" then say how amazing he is. Umm, well I have chaos in myself all the time and no dancing stars are bursting out of me.
Am I missing something here? apart from the poetic language(which I cannot understand most of the time) what is so good about this book?
Well, if you can't understand it, it must be good - clearly its very intellectual!
Excuse me a moment, I've mislaid my gallstone...
-
Oh, also I think that this doesn't have to be in the debate section. I see a question about Objectivism, not an argument being made against Objectivism. What do you think, Kevin?
I had the same thought.
-
And if that animal's existence doesn't directly or indirectly serve mankind, then it's existence is pointless. After all, if humans didn't exist, who would be around to care or not care whether their genes survived or not? The Earth would just be a big ball of pointlessness and inconsequentialities (I think I just invented that word.)
I think its fair to say that such an animals existence is pointless to mankind - but does that render it completely pointless? Is an animal of no use to man completely devoid of meaning? I don't see how that can be considered possible, when you've implicitly agreed that "The top priority of any instinct / genetic driven animal / plant is the survival of its genes, simply because all lifeforms that had other priorities died out and did not reproduce (as much)."
An animal can not be pointless or meaningless and also have priorities, because priorities in this sense means being greatest in importance to that living thing, and if something is important, it follows that the importance derives from some meaning. What meaning? As Ms. Rand states, the purpose of life is to live. Just as man is an end unto himself, an animal is an end unto itself. Without life no consciousness could evolve, and without consciousness, man could not think. Therefore, all living things have a fundamental point, and thus have an inherent value.
-
As in Nanny Ogg's foul-tempered, evil-minded, serial-rapist tomcat? Or some other Greebo?
Mrwooowl!
-
Wait wait wait. Someone's putting on a production of 'January'?
Yeah, where and when. If its anywhere nearby, I'll make getting to see it happen!
-
I would be interested in how some of the people here would answer this criticism. (You can find it expanded upon in the link David provided.)
I have actually already read this, and I thought his claim that "some objectivists say that [that which promotes life] is good" was mistaken. What I remember Ms. Rand saying was that Good and Evil can only have meaning for living things - that a stone simply is - and that no living being can act in a way that is contrary to life and survive.
As I recall hearing it, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, the conclusion was something like "that which promotes life can therefore be concluded to be good". I seem to recall "self evident" being in there somewhere too.
So if addressed with that criticism, I would say that the critic got Rand's view wrong. Life isn't good - Good and Evil are concepts that only have validity FOR life, stones don't have judgment systems. Those things in nature that act contrary to growing - or living - stagnate and die, and cease to be life. If Good has a definition, it can only be, therefore, that Good is Pro-Life, while Evil is Anti-Life. For a single living being, what promotes its own life is what is good. Further, as only man can choose to act in a manner contrary to his survival, it is only to man that Good and Evil have any significance. To the plant, the deer that eats it is evil, but neither the plant, nor the deer, can act in a way other than to be eaten or to eat. The man, however, who lives by a code which does not respect another man's life, invalidates his own right to have his life respected. Therefore, his code is detrimental to his life - it Evil, in that works to defeat himself.
Ok - how's that for a n00b?
-
I read it some years ago, and I agree- the book does have some value. Covey reaches many valid conclusions despite his frequently flawed premises.
-
What is being abstracted from the physical token? An idea, I assume. Isn't the specific form the physical token?
Is a performance of a play physical? Certainly, the manuscript is physical - but what if I'm edidic (I THINK thats the right word - photographic memory), and can watch a play and go to my own theater, teach it to my performers, and then perform the play again?
I haven't copied anything materially, but i have copied the product of the mind - the performance of the play - which isn't mine to do without paying for it.
-
In the interest of my own objectivity, I am interested in finding any articles which attempt to disprove Objectivism. I have seen plenty of emotionally based criticisms of Ms. Rand and Objectivism, and plenty that criticize it because its "unsympathetic" or "greedy", as well as those based on false assumptions.
What I am interested in, however, is a truly philosophical attempt to disprove all or part of Objectivism's core. My reason for wanting this is so that I can evaluate the counter-argument and determine, for myself, whether I find them convincing, and (operating on the assumption that I will not in fact be convinced, prepare effective counter-counter-arguments for them.
I have read the rules, and I know the object of this forum is the promotion of Objectivism. I hope this post isn't seen as contrary to that aim - I really do not think I'm going to find anything to convince me that Objectivism is wrong, but one must consider any rational or pseudo-rational argument and form ones own conclusions, right?
-
No, I think it implies this about anyone with a strong and uncompromising rational sense. A person with an occasional and selective commitment to rationality could be a Dadaist.
I know I'm new here, and I know this thread is kind of old and if reviving an old thread is bad form, I apologize in advance. I am, however, confused by this concept, and seek clarification.
How can one occasionally, selectively commit to rationality?
I sense a contradiction. If one is only occasionally rational, then one must, by definition, occasionally be irrational. A person who is rational and irrational is a contradiction.
-
Got $10.000.000? http://www.privateislandsonline.com/ronde-island.htm
Is that all they want?
Cause while I don't, I could chip in a share for partial ownership, if we could make the island self-sustaining and independent.
What about the Libertarian idea of taking over Vermont peaceably just by moving there? I bet we could co-exist reasonably well.
ETA: you missed a 0 - its $100 Mil.
-
Answer to Q1: 38
Answer to Q2: Circa College Years
Like Cheryl Taggart, I have believed much of what Objectivism teaches without being consciously aware of the definition (Cheryl's reconciliation with Dagny). Like Hank Reardon, I struggled for many years to accept what I was being told, and that my inability to accept it was wrong.
I remember very clearly when I was 19, and going through Boot Camp & A-School (2ndary training) up in old Great Mistakes, one weekend I went on an outing to play football, that turned out to be organized by a Christian organization. Simple plan - go to the base, pick up a bunch of dumb kids, host them for the weekend, play football on Sat, hold a prayer meeting, and take em to Church on Sunday, to "save them", and I remember on that field, WANTING to be able to believe in Jesus the way they talked about him, wanting that kind of surety that they had, but absolutely unable to accept on a fundamental level the contradictions inherent in Christianity. And I knew what they were better than most - my father is a Lutheran Minister. I was raised in the church.
I struggled again for years during a deep immersion in Amway (the Britt line - INTENSELY Christian Capitalism). Every time I went to a "function", I was largely right on board with what they taught - when it came to business, capitalism, ethics, morality, etc. -- until the inevitable praise to God, glory to Jesus, we couldn't do it without the Lord. Some times I tried to believe, again, other times I just sat and suffered through it.
In my late 20's and early 30's I finally gave up trying to be someone I'm not, and accepted my inability to believe, and became a devoted Agnostic (and I remain one, but that's a different topic). Today, like Cheryl, I finally know the name for how I see the world. Fortunately, my wife is NOT a nihilist, so jumping off a bridge is definitely not in my immediate future.
-
Hi, My name's Greebo, and I'm late in discovering Objectivism.
Hi Greebo
It's been about 2 months since I first started reading - well, listening to - Atlas Shrugged. A friend of mine recommended it to me because I was talking about some business ventures I'm pursuing, and how I enjoy "empire building" style games.
At first, I didn't know if I'd like it - so I asked two people who's opinions I value very much in forecasting whether I'll appreciate something or not. My cousin, because he frequently shares my tastes, and my father, because he doesn't. (Suffice it to say that my father is my own personal Dr. Robert Stadler, and leave it at that...)
Thanks to Audible, I have been able to enjoy Atlas Shrugged for the last two months now during my commute, and I have now moved onto "For the New Intellectual" in the car, and "The Fountainhead" in book form at home. I have been voraciously reading up on both Ms. Rand and Objectivism, and its criticisms, for weeks now, but have only just discovered this particular site.
After half an hour of reading the ethics and debate forums, I knew I'd found another home on the net.
So -
glad to be here, and I hope I won't cause too many of you to as I riddle the forum with about Objectivism. (Oh, and, when are the Objectivists forming their own State and seceding from the Union?)
Your mind and you
in Debates
Posted
All of this would make perfect sense right up to the point where the evidence of our existence very strongly shows that human beings do have the freedom to make choices, to change their behaviors, to chose to think and act on those thoughts, or to chose to let others do their thinking for them and be told what to do.
Objectivism rejects Hard Line Determinism. The three Axioms that serve as the foundation for Objectivism are simple:
1) Existence exists.
2) Existence is Identity
3) Consciousness exists
If Consciousness does not exist, then how are you able to contemplate whether or not consciousness exists?
Certainly our brains - the centers of our consciousness, are made up of chemicals, but to suggest that one has no choice flies in the face of the fact that every day you make thousands of choices - you choose to get out of bed, you choose what you will eat for breakfast, you choose what to wear, and you (specifically you in this case) choose to then surrender your freedom of choice to the notion that you don't have a choice.
If you have no choice, if you have no consciousness, if you have no self - then you are not a living being.
At which point, the objectivist stops considering you, because the Axiom of Consciousness says that we *are* living beings with conscious choices to be made.
I'd tell you to have a nice day, but you don't have a choice in the matter.
So --- bye...