Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Posts

    2588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    166

Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. As you claim... and yes, this I believe is an error. Explain conceptually why it is conceivable? What criteria do you have for "overcome it" and "only way"? If the world had a problem, how many inventive minds, far greater in creativity and ingenuity than the average person, could be brought to bear on it? How many people like Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Edison, the Wright brothers? Even if only 1 percent of the population were such creative geniuses, there would be over a million of them. And you have the confidence to say you can conceive of problems for which the only way to overcome it is socialism? You think the kinds of people who rise to power in socialist systems have the creativity and benevolence of mind so many of these inventive geniuses had? You think a socialist society is the kind to raise people to be more like people who discovered new medicines or more like goosestepping weasels and sheeple? You think a society is best able to meet a challenge when headed by a Stalin or a Reagan? And you, could you advise all the greats of the past of your doubt there is any solution to flying, artificial light, or an electric motor? What other problems would you erroneously deem unsolvable? How many countless situations would the likes of you or some thoughtless leader impose the "only" solution you or they can conceive of? I hope to God that if and when an actual threat rears its head, a flourishing, free, and capitalist society is there with individuals ready to meet it with free and willing minds of great creativity, genius ,and objective virtue, rather than the dull-witted, fear ridden ,"obedient" souls, produced by some spirit crushing Socialist society... I for one fully unshakably believe the highest probability of success against any threat is with the former rather than the latter. You had a question. THAT, is my answer.
  2. No one is saying existential threats are impossible. What is refuted is your bald assertion there is ONLY one possible way to overcome it.
  3. This is beyond a big "IF", it is false. It begs the question of what to do, of what is right, by baldly "hypothesizing" that there is only one inexorable possibility. Evidence, Science, Persuasion, Life, Value, Love Theses are all part of existing as a free-minded individual human beings and if each one sees action is required in view of all i.e. some behavior is right, then each will act accordingly. Statism is never the "only" way to anything, except perhaps widespread suffering, evil, and death. "Live free or die" does not mean "become an alcoholic and have sex with prostitutes until you die from liver failure or a venereal disease". "Life free" does not mean attempt to "live free from consequences", it means do not accept slavery, BOW to no one, respect every individual's sovereignty.
  4. Before getting into a set with an infinite number of members, just dealing with one or a few numbers, in the context of your question, what do you hold it means for “a number” or any “set of numbers” to exist versus not to exist.
  5. Boydstun, I think in the spirit of your personally being “not purely egoist”, you might consider it important to sketch, if only in broad strokes, the bones or main structure of your ethics (which you deem are on a solid footing) in a sort of “introduction” which you might be able to expand upon if the finitude of life’s span permits, but which nonetheless represents the unwavering unshakeable base you have already formed, and upon which any remaining more detailed formulations and expositions are to be made. I propose a sort of ITBE (Introduction to Boystun’s Ethics) even if only in essay form, but possibly of any length or of any title, again in the spirit of how crucial the philosophy of ethics is and your being “not purely egoist”.
  6. The book ends with a power outage… not with a culture or power shift actually having been achieved.
  7. As you have observed, on existing land territories incumbent government structures and societal cultures will dictate the possibility, speed, and extent of any change. Unless it’s only some kind of Sea steading, artificial island, deep sea, or space colony which is established as the new country, no geniuses will be able to pull off anything to bring about a truly free country without changing culture over the long run, which is slow. Any sharp and sudden “shrugging” by anyone with any real economic power will be seen (by the prevalent culture) as callous and power hungry, simultaneously indifferent to the public good while attempting a kind of blackmail at the expense of the poor… keep believing it is possible, it might be as good for your psychology as believing in an afterlife.
  8. To my mind, this is the most compelling argument for off Earth colonization.
  9. Yes. Space is a relationship between things, defined thereby and it is relative. Those things exist in space and at points in space. Space cannot exist "in space" or "at points in space" it IS the space. Anything whatever that can exist at or in space or exhibit any property, attribute, is something other than space. Particles, fields, potentials, probabilities, are all things or aspects of things at or in space, not properties OF space, on the contrary... the positional parameters of those things, i.e. the spatial coordinates or those things, are properties or attributes of those things, in relation to other things. No thing is a property or attribute of space. Space, position, location, extension, area, volume... these are all properties of things in relation to themselves and each other.
  10. I think the GCR is typified or at least described in terms of high energy nuclei, rather than photons... heavy ions... travelling at incredibly high speeds, almost the speed of light. Space itself does not impart any drag on a free ion travelling near the speed of light, although a stray atom in space might collide with it. https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/nsrl/why-space-radiation-matters
  11. The sun's radiation is statistically typified by its specific nature, size, composition, temperature, etc. limiting the highest energy of the particles it can emit and limiting the probability of those med-high energy particles that it can emit Other objects and events (some quite exotic) in the galaxy are far larger, more energetic, etc, so those particles are of much higher energy. Recall photons are quanta of energy, so each photon from a weak gamma ray signal is still a gamma ray photon... just as energetic as any other gamma ray photon.
  12. The realization that every individual's contextual surroundings, metaphysically is becoming such that freedom to choose to live outside of a wrong society, outside of its grasping, oppressive, insipid, nanny-tyrant grip...into some pristine environment abundant enough to support a human life... not free from hard work but at least a free one ... is fast disappearing... is existentially depressing. A few centuries ago a free man could tell his village he wanted no more... and could leave... and if he ranged far enough, and was ingenious and productive enough, and with perhaps others of his ilk, he could make a living in supporting and sustaining himself and his family, and escape, if at least only for a while. A totalitarian or a socialist might try to go after him, but perhaps they would stop at only chastising him as he left. "Don't like it here? Good riddance!" Now, or very soon, there literally is no where to go Nowhere to escape the many many hands, in our pockets, bedrooms, education, entertainment, speech, economics...everywhere... "You'll own nothing... you'll all pay minimum wage and minimum tax or earn a minimum "living salary" have a minimum of health care and you'll love it"... I am disgusted and outraged beyond description at the insanity, which seems to march incessantly onward... the whole world is going from shirts to shirtsleeves. Instead of escaping our enslavers, instead of walking away peacefully from a fight with our petty screaming redfaced despots next door... who know what's best for us (and them), wielding that all mighty ballot box... must we choose to fight forever or be enslaved forever? sigh So really true freedom comes again... when... in a few millenia? Perhaps never... I know will never see the day where I or my son, or my ancestors live in a truly free society... I will be taxed, redistributed, and redtaped into submission every day of my finite life. Perhaps... there is after all an actual morality in escapism... morality in perhaps living in a video game, or with a belief in the afterlife ... if death is all that can ever set me free.. perhaps a morality based on life is profoundly misguided.
  13. It would appear that the next half century will be crucial in determining whether freedom lives anywhere on Earth. It also seems that space technology, and its becoming more ubiquitous and accessible to pioneers, is critical for plan B: any escape from a One World Order to the great free expanse. The next iron curtain that goes up will "surround" Earth itself, and the next space race will be between that curtain and free individual's ability to leave and sustain ourselves elsewhere. So in the sense of mental fuel I get from anticipating the welfare of my children, grandchildren, etc. going to Mars, and all the technology and infrastructure that would entail, for me, is good. Although I can't vote with my wallet for space tourism (I cannot afford it)... I'd donate a few clicks to and maybe buy some merch from a firm like SpaceX precisely because of this... and maybe Virgin Galactic as well.
  14. Hmmm perhaps the definition of inside and outside could be tweaked. All areas that can be designated outside, require minimal maintenance (space walking) could simply be open to vacuum and radiation. Only areas with continual human presence would be shielded and pressurized.
  15. I hear you, however, the ultimate and entire moral and economic purpose of a Corporation is the interest of the shareholders, who are the owners. The owners themselves are individual people with finite life spans. Ownership means their individual interests are paramount... at least it would in a moral society. So in the end, although there may be no foreseeable end date for an entity such as a corporation, and although long term flourishing of the corporation is in the long term interests of the owners, that long term cannot be so far outside the range of human life that the individual shareholders will not be the beneficiaries of that which they own. The owners are not morally held to sacrifice their own individual interests to future generations. Any savings, or investments, or any other action a corporation takes, must be to the benefit of and intended to accrue to the current living shareholders, or as the shareholders voluntary designate, their beneficiaries, assigns or transferees, etc.
  16. To save mass, instead of cladding the entire ship with the idea humans should be able to run around essentially naked everywhere inside... designate only a small percentage of ship for "relaxation" areas (where people can wear jammies and slippers) and the rest of the ship requires full protection of specially designed radiation (but not pressurized) suits. Of course sensitive electrical and other equipment will need proper shielding... and the greenhouse/chicken coup as well.
  17. Insane ideas spread, so discussing the matter might succeed in stopping it, at least in the case of the personal acquaintance you happen to to be dealing with... as to how much an objective threat to "society in general" insane ideas have as they spread from and to particular individuals, that is no easy question to answer. I am not sure a metric for the sanity or insanity of society as such is workable, better to think in terms of societies which are beneficial or inimical to sane individuals, or how prevalent sane or insane ideas are within a society... I would argue society itself is neither sane nor insane but merely a collection of individuals. People are not to be quarantined, nor are people's rights to freedom of speech to be infringed, such an approach to quelling the spread of insanity would be immoral. Persuasion and good ideas are the only proper ammunition against insane ideas and their spread.
  18. The experience of your own reaction is your payment for your understanding or misunderstanding of the world. Rationality/Justice counsel proportionality, not only for those others whom your sentiments are about, but for your own "experience" of other people, which you put yourself through. Hatred is the most vile and extreme sort of emotion which takes a toll on the experiencer which has to be paid for by the benefits of the extreme action it urges one toward... be it elimination of a mortal enemy, or complete disassociation with a thoroughly toxic and irredeemable person in whom no value whatsoever may be found... but make no mistake it does not leave one unscathed, whether any action, appropriate or not, is taken in response. Upon reflection, you may find disappointment, sadness, regret, lowering of esteem are more rational for you to subject yourself to as an experience and more Just and proportional a response to others. Be rational in your assessment of the whole person, be it your brother or your father. Also, final responsibility for an adult person of sufficient intelligence lies with that person alone... fault the father a lack of fatherhood as a factor but you cannot negate the son's final responsibility in making his own soul.
  19. I think there is also an insidious anti-concept lurking in the idea of some kind of arithmetical "total wealth" which makes the concept meaningless. The idea of creation of wealth is provably valid in a narrow situation when both parties trade voluntarily, because that implies both parties in the transaction benefit (to the best of their knowledge), and hence wealth is created. BUT when you have some parties clearly losing wealth or health or rights in forced transactions, where others benefit, the losses and wins to those different people are in some sense incommensurate, and at least any claim about the sum total wealth is an arbitrary claim. How much is freedom worth? How much are rights worth? How much is life worth if you live as a parasite? How much worth is destroyed by an arrangement such as slavery? If 10 people can generate 10 units of economic productivity when they are all free and alive, but if one were to enslave the 9 others and he could extract 100 units of productivity while working them literally to death... what do we say of the measure of so called "wealth" of 100 in the hands of a single survivor murderer versus 10 in the hands of a group of happy free living people? The idea that there is a simple calculus of total "wealth" in the context of different individuals is fraught with difficulty and oversimplification leads to the very ideas of Ulititarianism and the redistribution of wealth.
  20. Yes indeed. One cannot prove the negative with positive evidence, one can only demonstrate that there is a lack of any evidence. Nothing in existence serves as evidence which proves the non-existence of the Devil, it's not as if the fabric of space time could purposefully post little signs saying "No Devil here". One can only point to the fact that no evidence has been shown supporting a claim to the positive... and in absence of any, there is nothing further to discuss. EDIT: But here I agree with you and ET both... one does not prove non-existence of say the Devil but in the face of claims to purported evidence one can demonstrate the lack of any evidence by skewering/debunking that purported evidence.
  21. Keeping in mind nothing in concrete reality is arbitrary, and that only abstractions, thoughts, claims, or strings of symbols meant to signify these sorts of things, can be arbitrary, how about something like this: "Any idea or claim in any form, when any substantive portion thereof is wholly causally disconnected from reality, is, insofar as that portion is so disconnected, arbitrary." Accordingly, although a room full of monkeys typing randomly, will by accident create strings of symbols which if interpreted by a human, sometimes correspond to something in the real world, the accidental strings were never causally connected to anything in the real world... and should be seen as arbitrary, and objectively so because causality not an abstraction but a process of reality. I am proposing that in evaluating those typed letters (or any claim) one does not simply look at the meaning as interpreted by a human, as such, absent context, but must take into account how they are causally linked or disconnected from reality, and specifically the claimed referents "alleged" to have been their cause. I believe any sort of arbitrary claim or statement, involves this lack of causal connection. EDIT: How this intersects with falsity is not so simple when dealing with a volitional mind, but in some ways they are independent, as some claims are arbitrary but true, others are false but not arbitrary (humans are fallible), and in other cases one can make a purposefully false and arbitrary statement.
  22. If I point at a blank page and state "The dog is grey", is that an objectively arbitrary statement?
  23. It does not matter who said it, or even if it were said at all, but the “it” is still only a statement or claim.
×
×
  • Create New...