avgleandt
-
Posts
120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by avgleandt
-
-
Thank you. Yeah post the video anywhere you like, the more the better, I been trying to add the video as a response but I have not been approved yet.
-
thanks for the idea zip, i said I would remake this vid and so I did.
what you guys think?
-
Sore winners
-
The borg, thats great lol. i am goona try to redit this video.
-
Ayn rand mention in bloomberg article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwide
This article link is also posted on Drudgereport.
They called her a libretarian, and the article is about how Greene Span found a flaw in free markets.
I think Greene Span should of said under current conditions, which is not a free market, instead of free market.
-
Hot damn Avgleandt now we are talking. I obviously disagree that the whole system would devolve into repression. I don't think it would become "everyone for everyone" and if it did then people would have done so with their own permission. I do reject the idea that evil cannot lead to good. You can't build civilization without breaking a few eggs and by eggs I mean tribals societies that didn't want to be in Rome and do as the Romans do (or did). I think that the Golden Middle can be maintained and that, pragmatically, immoral actions can have results that are both moral and immorals. You don't get the USA without Native Americans being killed off. I honestly don't know how to morally handle these events. Obviously I find the conquering of the New World as bad, but I like that the U.S. exists. Contradictory, no? Contrary to principle, no? Yet I know not what else to do. While pragmatism seems to make "all possible", I truly feel that principle is just too rigid and a non-starter as the only contributor to political action.
Percisely. You do not know how to handdle these events morally because do not have a moral code, you do not have an ethics. And since ethics hierchaly comes before politics, all you political ideas can be judged just as worthless. US vs Native americans is not a contradiction, nor is it contrary to principle, at least principles identified by objectivists. If you find it that the pricinple you hold contradicts, then it is wrong, check your premises and try again.
Note on principle: I will look into this. I think that when I was 'into' the Objectivist ideas this principle thing is what turned me off without me realing knowing it. It was quite a step for me to consciously accept the pragmatic point of view. I finally decided to hell with principle as I found it too rigid and too easy to contradict. I'd spend so much time trying to find that perfect principle and I just couldn't make it work. At the end of the day I just don't like the reprecussions of objectivism :\ If have to to embrace the all-too-dangerous "the ends justify the means" to avoid a gilded age (and liking it) then I will. When I think of this, I don't neccessarily like it but I truly don't know how else to react. Objectivism may indeed be the perfect philosophy; a pure diamond of thought. Yet it is far too sharp, I feel, to be a philosophy over the vicissitudes of life. I am not for a total rejection of principle. I just think that it must be dilluted by the pragmatic. Maybe pragmatism can be a principle itself?(hmm...thinking cap time) I guess you could say I pragmatically mix pragmatism and principle as needed. In what proportions do I mix them? Well that's arbitrary depending on the situation.
I recommend you read Objectivism Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Pikoff. I don't think you know enough about objectivism, priciples, or contradictions. That book is the best material I know for understanding objectivism from begining to end, from metaphysics to aesthetics. Once you have read that book, and you still believe that objectivism contradicts its self, or don't understand something, or disagree with something. Then you can come back here, or any other resource of your choising and ask specific questions. Right now I see this discusion going on to many tangents, we might as well as start with this. Do you agree exsistence exsists?
-
I c, JohnS, you seem to be arguing, and correct me if I am wrong. That some regulation works better then no regulation at all. You are looking for the golden medium. And your suggesting that since some regulation works better, we should sacrifice our principles in order to reach these ends. In effect you are saying that the ends justify the means. Objectivists don't believe that. Objectivists believe that no good can be achieved by evil means. In a compromise between good and evil only evil can benefit. Tom is saying that slavery is bad, and should not exsist. Bob is saying that if Tom was a slave only 10% of the time then this would work better. If Tom compromises on being a slave 10%, in effect what he is saying is that slavery can be used for good. Now Eva comes in and says. Well since now we have decided that slavery can be used for good, lets find out which percentage works the best. The the percentage begins to grow as more and more pressure groups fight for the piece of the pie. At the same time, the benefits of having 0% slavery never transpire. As percentage grows, things get worse. Mabye at one point the public decides that the percentage got to high and cuts it down. However this percentage is an abritary number that will not float in the middle for ever, eventually everyone will become a slave to everyone, or everyone will become free.
-
Have you used any Apple products for any period of time made in approximately the last eight years?
Yes i have, ipod, itunes, but not a computer at least not for extended period of time. I am saying that their guts are now the same. I don't know about the difference in performace. My experience with ipod and itunes is negative.
-
It's difficult for me to defend a company that's based it's marketing of it's mediocre products as "Ours are better then anyone else, and if you have one you are better then everyone else"
Yeah I agree. Offcourse apple should still be able to do whatever it wants with its propertity. Also considering that the only reason it survived is because of similar anti-trust law suits against microsoft. I don't understand while apple is still trying to be a hardware company. Now that they switched to intel, there is nothing different between them or traditional pc's, except that they charge about 50% more and they are white. Why don't they just sell their software to everyone?
-
The simplest answer is that space time are simply relationships between entities, not physical entities themselves as the concept of spacetime implies. A simple analogy is people exist as distinct entities, and various relationships can exist between these people, however, the "relationship" is NOT a physical entity in itself, and the relationships that exist between these people could NOT exist without the existence of the physical entities (the people). Does that help?
If space is not a something, how do you explain how gravity exerts its force?
-
I am an expert in regard to general relativity. No offence, but the standard intepretation that "spacetime" exists indepently is incorrect. Have you ever studied M-theory or the Plank-time era after the bang's inflationary physics? There was no "beginning of time"; such a concept is a metaphysical impossibility; time is eternal. Space and time are just relationships between existents. The standard interpretation of GR as "spacetime" existing as its own entity is incorrect both metaphysically, and with regard to the Riemannian geometry and/or the physical interpretation of the equations. Actually, space and time only exist within the universe, they do NOT apply to the universe qua universe.
I have read about M-theory and Plank length. I don't remember them explaining any new interpertations of spacetime. I remeber M-theory pointing to something that can be called the big bounce instead of big bang, where the universe expands and contracts enternally. M-theory was also saying that there is 12 deminsions and our current 4 deminsional spacetime could be a membrane floating within a higher demision(if this is what you mean by existing within the universe). However, there is no evidence of any of this so far. I do not however understand how spacetime is not its own entity, wether it is with in the universe or not within it, either way its something. Could you explain or point me to some reading?
-
what happened to encyclopedia dramatica? it says its being shut down?
-
avgleandt-- You are correct that evidence has shown that the universe is flat and homogeneous to a very high degree when taken on large enough scales (on the order of superclusters), but the interpretation that space is expanding is incorrect in the sense that it is blowing up like a balloon or something. Space is just a relationship between existents ,and as such has no independent existence.
Actually general relativity does allow for space itself to expand quicker than the speed of light. The light speed limit only applies to things that have mass. But according to GR massless particles and space itself can travel superluminally but as I said this is a misinterpretation of the physics.
The big bang was a phase transition of the energy state of an eternal universe.
Space does have an independent existence, i believe your not familiar with general relativity. Not only does space have independent exsistance but so does time. Scientists usually refer to it togethore as spacetime. Plantes and stars have an effect on spacetime through gravity, they bend and warp it. These are concepts of special and general relativity.
They currently do not know what there was before the big bang because the math and equations they currently have break down at a certain point and they can't explore much further. They currenlty theorize that the 3 spacial dimension and the one time dimension where all curled up before the big bang. So that could be what you call an enternal universe adn the phase shift is the big bang when for some reason the dimensions decided to start streching out. However, since the big bang was the begining of time, there is no point in talking about what there was before time. Time always exsisted.
-
One of my interests is physics, so I have read a few books on this subject, but I am currently not up to date because I been out of the loop for a little bit of time. I believe that according to most up to date data and research and scientific measurements of the backround radiation they think. The universe is finite, flat, and expanding. One interesting thing I read briefly about the expansion that might point to a possibility of it being unbounded, if i remeber this correctly. Imagine a rubber band. Start streching it, which parts of the rubber band are expading the fastest? The corners or the ends of the rubber band are expading much faster then the middle. The similar thing is currently happening to space. The edges of space and the universe is expanding much faster then the rest of the universe. So fast in fact, I beleive they measured it to be almost twice the speed of light. Now that seems impossible according to theory of relativity, however the thoery of relativity only says that only things traveling throw space cannot break the light barrier, it doesn't say anything about space its self. Since the edges of space are expanding faster then we can possibly get to them, we can never reach the edge of the universe. If you doubt that space cannot strech faster then light speed, then you should think about the big bang. Big bang would not of been possible is space could not strech at greater then light speeds. During the big bang there was something called infamitory expansion, when the universe grew at ridicoulus speeds, which they think made all the forces such as gravity and electormagnitism possible. sorry for grammar and spelling its really late here.
-
2) Rand's theory is at least INCOMPLETE, because it does NOT explain the involuntary process of "fantasy-scenario making" that happen when a person dreams.
I don't think Rand was interested in explaining the technicality of how dreams are formed. Thats not a philosophers job, its more for a scientist.
Does anybody here able to Lucid dream. I can, and your understanding of dreams changes once you can do that. For example, I am concious of how my particular thoughts in my dream produce the particular imagery, scenarios, and events. As a result I am able to manipulate the dream almost fully.
-
Of course, all airlines could get together and ban smoking on all flights, or even on certain routes, or only on short flights, etc. But wouldn't that come under antri-trust laws? Even if it doesn't, any airline could opt out, and make up for the extra fuel with extra passengers.
You got it, free market did not fail, because no free market actually exsisted.
-
When the joker keeps asking for his phone call, can i laught at that?
-
I don't think it has anything to do with freedom. You are talking about an era where the population size is smaller, information travels slower, and most people are uneducated. Naturally there are far more opportunities for the capable to move into due to far worse competition.
Today education is ubiquitous, almost anybody can acquire large amounts of information in their area of interest at an extreme pace, and you are competing against other talents globally. Naturally there are far less opportunities for the young, especially if you live in a more developed society where most market niches have already been saturated by giant conglomerates with far more resources than you. For folks that live in the first world, their best shot at success is by developing completely new markets with a low cost of entry and very little competition (for instance web-based ventures).
On the other hand, when you look at the strongest of the emerging markets such as China, it is a complete wild west. The population have a huge amount of newly acquired capital, but have extremely few and under-developed consumption venues for them to funnel those cash into. A poorly educated but capable man can make his own way by finding a market niche, cultivate it, and then rapidly expand across a vast population. There is less of a need to be original because the consumption patterns have not been as clearly defined and taken over by corporate chains through economy of scale. It is just like playing musical chairs, only with far more empty seats.
I think you have some very good points I just wanted to point some stuff out and add as well. Lower or higher population doens't determine success or amount of opportunities. Higher population actually makes more niches available to take advantage off. Ex: A guy in Manhanttan, high population area, was able to start a very profitable business fixing this one type of Doll. This business would be impossible in low population area because there wouldn't be enough people owning and breaking this Doll. I also think the game of musical chairs is a bad analogy for an economy. In that game there is a limited amount of chairs, which is not true in reality. In reality there is a unlimited potential for demand.
-
That capitalism article also makes fun of capitalism, Ayn Rand, and the Fountainhead, and objectivists. Making fun of the good is not that funny.
-
I think evil is portrayed perfectly in this movie. The joker is set out to destroy morality, and Harvey dent is his achievement in doing so. What the Joker wants is for people to decide that morality does not exsist, and thats exactly what Harvey Dent decides when he turns all this decisions to a flip of a coin. The Joker sets up situations of emergencies to destroy peoples moral codes. This is similar to moral dilemas you usually her about in philosophy 101. The goal of these dilemas is always to destroy any belief in the exsistence of morality. Objectivism address these moral dilemas very well in the Ethics of Emergencies. Though evil is portrayed very well, Batman is suppose to be the good, and suppose to have a philosophical answer to the joker. Unfortunally that is done very weakly. Mabye its because Wayne is still growing to fully understand Justice and morality, but I think its because the writers just don't know what they are talking about. In the end the good doesn't seem to be very self confident.
-
Where I live we used to have a by-law that forbade clotheslines. Apparently some idiot was offended by his neighbours tightie whities hanging out.
One of the big pluses for objectivism in government to me is the reduction of invasive and obtrusive interference of all regulation on peoples lives, I don't necessarily want to just replace that governmental constriction with contractual ones that accomplish the same thing.
I guess that's for me to watch out for though. If any one else wants to change their government oppression for contractual oppression then that's their business.
There is no such thing as contractual oppression. You have a choice to enter or not to enter into a contract, no one is making you do it. Further all contracts that actually violate your rights would be considered void. Example, you enter into a contract to be someone's slave for a year. 6 months into it, you don't want to be a slave anymore and you stop. If this guy takes you to court saying that you own him 6 more months of slavery. The contract would be considered void, and you would go free.
-
Right, this is what I meant when I said "I recognize that, in the Objectivist picture, man gets his identity from birth, but then he uses that identity to act freely." To elaborate on what followed this, there surely is something that makes a person choose one thing rather than another. It cannot be that the choices, in any sense, just happen without cause. This would be mere indeterminism: Random events that come to be, in the way that the universe just exists. The universe needs no explanation for why it exists, one must simply acknowledge that it does. Likewise, indeterminate events just happen, and there is no more to the story. This is not free will--one cannot be blamed for indeterminate events any more than one can be blamed for the way that the world has come to exist.
So the Objectivist has to maintain that one's self--one's own identity, not just as a man, but one's individual, personal identity--causes one to choose x rather than its alternatives, y, z, and so on. Identity qua man may mean that he has free will, but identity qua this particular man means that he makes these choices. It is in this later context of personal identity that I ask, what creates this identity? If it is anything external, the thesis is no longer free will. If one creates one's own identity, then one's identity comes into being by the will to create oneself. A nothing becomes a something.
Cause and effect work perfectly fine with free will. Just because there is a cause for everything, does not show or prove that anything was pre-determined. The fact that man must make choices at every point of his life(free will) and that there is a time line of events that lead up to a certain choice(cause and effect) does't not make the person choose x over y or over any other possibilities. The person is certainly influenced by past events, but he still posses volition to make any choice he wants. He is not pre-determined to choose x(determinism), nor did this situation randomly materialize out of no where(indeterminism).
-
For instance, take the situation where an infant is conceived into the world and he begins to receive information from his senses. At some point, at the moment of consciousness or later, he develops volition and may focus and understand the information or choose not to. The moment he has volition, he will make one of several choices. He makes choice x. What made him choose x? His identity? What made his identity such that he would choose x? His nature, his experiences, or himself? If it's the former two, he has no will--if it's the later, then existentialism is correct and a nonbeing can create its own being. Nothing informed the child's identity but the child--but then, then child's volition didn't exist until it willed itself into existence by forming its identity. I'm not categorically dismissing this option; to me it's the only valid way of believing in free will. I just wanted to draw it out.
His identity didn't make him choose x, his identity gave him the ability to make choices. A human does not have a choice to have or not to have a philosophy, by his nature he will have a philosophy, he only has the choice of which philosophy he will have. There are some given things in the universe that a human does not have a choice about, like for example existence exists. In the same way humans don't have the choice to have or not to have free will, they all have it, its a characteristic of our exsistence. Now when you talk about rationality and say that people tend to be more rational in the united states then in Iran for example its a different subject. There are many variables involved that might make someone rational or irrational, this being because rationality is not human nature, its a choice. A human can choose to be rational or irrational the same way he can choose to think or not to think. Plus Iran like most muslim countries is a police state, where people can't really express them selves openly. This makes it much harder to evaluate how rational the general population is.
-
What if instead of not voting completely, you do vote, but write in a new candidate "John Galt". Then people counting the votes will be like, who is John Galt?
Just when you thought...
in Current Events
Posted
I used youtube downloader to capture and format the video. I used vegas video to edit and render.