Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    148

Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. Ah... so a disembodied artificial immortal (til the heat death of the universe) intelligence has a somewhat platonic perspective on the external world. But in some sense this would be expected? I suspect the sense of “dream” used also is broad and poetic rather than technical. Myhaps there are times such advice is not wholly useless, and perhaps at others even to reverse the metaphor, while careful not to stray into self abnegation.. treat yourself as a precious and unique dream the universe is having, one which it will awake from never to have again.
  2. Which character is the originator of this platonic view? Not the protagonist I presume?
  3. I wonder, if the "power" of refrainment is not "deliberate" in what sense is it willed or free?
  4. Boydstun, have you read this? I am a little concerned with the synopsis claiming she argues "indeterminism" can be of no possible help. IF a system exhibits "choosiness" which is neither "determined" nor "indetermined" nor a mixture of the two... (a mixture of something which "can be of no possible help" might as well just be a mixture without that something) I wonder just what IS it? Anyway, curious about your thoughts of the book and whether it is worth a purchase.
  5. Although it sounds paradoxical, subjective pleasure and happiness are objective values. We are mental as well as physical creatures, and our mental health plays just as an important role in self-sustenance as our physical health. In fact, more so in the modern world.
  6. What you observe here are "free will" and the "man made". These are somewhat different from the primacy of consciousness. The relationship between existence and consciousness in the same thing is hierarchical. Your consciousness is possible due to and indeed arose from existence. You weren't, then you were (now you are) and your consciousness is, but one day you simply won't be. Technically, the existence of you, in all your complexity, does not at once "cause" you to be conscious... you ARE conscious because of your identity... the whole nature of the complexity of you... things are
  7. I think it is uncontroversial here to say that capitalism CAUSES no racism.
  8. Actually no. Identifying that IT IS AN ERROR to draw a conclusion that X MUST be the case from premises which do not logically necessitate X, is not itself an error. I must disagree. Your line of reasoning implies that Rand justified or showed capitalism was good based on purported results or outcomes of the system, "productivity", "innovation", people "generally" getting what they "deserve". On the contrary, what Rand held as the justification of Capitalism, is not the outcome but the opportunity and freedom a moral and ethical system absent initiation of force, provide
  9. Nice to meet you Sebastien. Neat and tidy conceptualization... very important for proper thought. Query: Why do some tend to avoid neat and tidy conceptualization? What is achieved by "avoiding" it? What motivations are at play? The left will conflate and equivocate and provide arguments which are semi-formed, confusingly self-contradictory and anti-conceptual... how does a person adhering to reason "argue" against a position which inherently eschews neat and tidy thought? In the end I suppose being clear in your own mind is more important than worrying about another's lack of under
  10. This has me thinking about the common conflation between "objective" and "universal" in morality by O'ists as well.... and perhaps I am being influenced by similar sentiments... I like your emergent presentation of neuroplasticity... it raises a more urgent and important aspect than my mentioning in passing that tastes can change... indeed as Rand observed we are the self-makers of our own souls... and I would add for good or ill, by both what we do and what we fail to do. In that aspect not only are some values, personal... their very existence may be crafted by one's own determination
  11. As a preliminary what I find as interesting here is an accent on motivation rather than consequence. Which brings up a subtle issue.. are you more interested in asking whether the action of a person (while making a choice) is moral or not or in determining whether the choice presented is a moral one or not? There is the question of "being good" but also there is the question of "what IS the good". I think in terms of "traditional" subjective philosophies about morality, the motivation of a person, their subjective intent to be moral "as such", i.e. to do what they think is their dut
  12. I think "gradation" is a good way to characterize the fact that although reality and causation are one and intertwined so that every little decision one makes does affect oneself, technically speaking, it should be remembered that those effects or consequences of some decisions persist or become part of a causal chain which persists (a tattoo, or amputation) while the effects and consequences of others do not (writing a phone number on one's palm). Things whose effects are impermanent or do not form part of some causal chain which has permanent effects generally do not affect the whole of
  13. Before I read Rand, I would have said Capitalism is an economic only system, independent of politics. After Rand, Capitalism is a new concept for me (as new as morality became for me), and is not so much economics as an economy defined by politics... and I cannot but utter the implied preface "Laissez-faire"... even though ironically insistence on that is as redundant as saying "independent" before "thought". Ownership, refers primarily only to the rights in one's property. But can we say that (capital C) Capitalism is a system agnostic to freedom of speech? What about freedom of a
  14. I suppose this is either shockingly obvious or astonishingly erroneous. In either case, I need reevaluate my use of time and my hierarchy of values.
  15. There is so much which is conspicuously wrong with Fraser's address that it is almost a waste of text here to try to address the flaws we all can see and which Rand has specifically refuted throughout her work. As for addressing "specifics advanced" in the paper... what stands out to me is actually what is NOT specifically advanced in the paper. Although I feel a sense akin to the futility of disproving an arbitrary claim and the impossibility at pointing at traces left by that which does not exist, I realize that pointing out what should have been investigated, presented, and arg
  16. Also, in the context of what you said, I tend to think that Rand would not be focused so much on "the law" (and non obedience) but that a criminal gained value by initiating force, violating someone else's rights, namely property rights, and that everyone (or the government) let him get away with it. In other words, what you remember is probably more about "rights" and "morality" than it is about observing or breaking "laws" (which can be passed by improper governments - think Nazi Germany - and which laws can themselves be invalid violations of individual rights).
  17. Ii's quite possible she touched on this in discussing related subjects multiple times and in multiple contexts. What I am reminded of are her statements about "compromise". The one I have in mind is from the Virtue of Selfishness, "Doesn't Life Require Compromise". Essentially she teaches that compromise although useful and essential in certain contexts does not properly apply to moral issues or things like individual rights. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html The third quote down includes a bit about compromise with a burglar "There can be no compro
  18. This left leaning centrist classical liberal gets it... (ok he has some lefty sounding things sprinkled in this but still) while "Objectivists" here, sound more and more like the far-left. The American Dream DEMANDS Hard Work, My Response To Shoe0nHead And Dr Karlyn I LOVE his use of the terms "entitled" "spoiled" and "pampered". He doesn't address this but he's identified and encountered an epidemic afflicting a whole generation, or more ... hopefully it will not afflict Gen Alpha... and perhaps they are the only hope for the future.
  19. “Told you so” Hardly. I am asking about the concrete long term threat China poses, and the current rapidly weakened position of America. This isn’t some nit picky philosophical grading rubric about globalization, trade, or immigration. I’m not saying Trump is at all philosophically driven let alone correct in his philosophy and deserving of our gold sticker of approval. This is about long term strategy... dare I say cold war strategy... in the face of a prodigious Communist enemy who should not be underestimated, placated, appeased, nor ignored any longer.
  20. Does anyone recall whether the democrats were worried about the US increasing reliance on China for ... well ... almost everything. Also, does anyone recall democrats reminding Americans that China is a Communist state and not to get too cozy, or rely too much upon them, economically, manufacturing wise, for medicines like antibiotics etc? I don’t know, do any Objectivists find America’s previous complacent reliance on, naive appeasement of, blind faith in, and essentially forfeiting a portion of its self-reliance and independence to a dictatorial Communist State (one whose ex
  21. aw bbbbbut the Democrats would never let the far left drive policy decisions.... wwwwwould they? Naw... everything’ll be fine....
  22. It will be interesting to see how this self corrects. Perhaps a resurgence in direct consumer subscription will result when people realize the free content with ads model often produces garbage... and also that a market adhering to a content demand model rather than a content pushing model is just better all around.
  23. Maybe I need to break it down: So 1. The mainstream news media is predominantly trustworthy as written. 2. The occasional glaring contradictions he does find are used mostly to exaggerate and sensationalize events to fit an “alarmist” take on things which is only tenuously plausible.
×
×
  • Create New...