Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    154

Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. Smith may have said this but it is so backward. Accidental societal benefit is not some kind of justification for self-interest. Self-interest, is the only justification for the existence and formation of society to begin with.
  2. Is that covered by the old contract? Is it in each of their separate interests to sign a further contract? If in both their interests it would it be rational for each to do so, yes? If not, it would be rational for one or both to decline.. no? Is declining to make a further agreement because it is not in your interest somehow a "conflict"? Is it ever in MY interest for YOU to act AGAINST your interest?
  3. The contract sets up rights and obligations between the parties. Contract law deals with the issues of determining the nature and extent of those rights in the context of those parties who contracted. Are rights objective? If so we can still come to different conclusion about them in a particular context, particularly if there is asymmetry of information. But ask yourself, is is in your interest to be in breach of a contract, to violate the rights of someone with whom you have contracted, in order to gain an unearned benefit be it wealth or avoidance of loss. Is it in
  4. This comes back to the idea of whether what she means by "interests" are more like desires and wishes on the one hand or more like recognition or anticipation of objective values and property on the other. It really comes down to what you are referring to when using the term. The following is a response, however, it is directed to all in general, and not you personally. I think the phrase "conflict of interest" is fraught with difficulty, even if it might have been the best phrase Rand could have used to convey her idea. How else does one summarize this revolution
  5. OK, I'm pretty sure I must have misused the definition of zero sum game. I meant something more akin to scarce and limited resources. Zero sum game, in those terms you more correctly put it, is simply an impossibility in reality, but a sort of floating philosophical hypothetical. In reality, with limited resources, trade could still exist even if you had all the axes and I had all the trees.
  6. Ah yes true. That implies something more akin to actual property: leaning in a good direction toward objectivity. Of course the mere fact of that does not overcome the fallibility of man.
  7. Interesting phrasing: advantage or benefit "to" connection... because you "can gain" Connotation here in both is toward that of potential rather than a fully realized gain or accrued benefit... sort of prior to "cashing in".
  8. Observe Rand decided to use the term "interest", not "rights" or "property" or "claims" BUT ALSO NOT "desires", "dreams", "wishes", "hopes" and "plans"... she is talking of something along the transformational journey from such overlapping and subjective potentials toward the non-overlapping objective actuals. A rational man realizes that the journey, although starting open ended, ends at a place where things are no longer subject to his whim.
  9. IMHO According to Objectivism, values are objective (neither subjective nor intrinsic), but the concrete form they take varies in context or person to person. Art IS an objective value to the psyche, the form that takes will vary from person to person and context to context. Does whether there is a zero sum game affect whether or not property is objective? IF reality were such that there HAD to be winners and losers, would that matter at all to the objectivity of values and rights and property?
  10. Further to my post above, let’s do a survey: Are “interests” primarily objective or primarily subjective?
  11. Conflict of Interests: Why not start from the objective side of "interest" and move back? I always interpreted Rand's use of "conflict of interest" as not having anything to do with being "interested" in something as in subjectively (possibly merely irrationally) wanting something, but as meaning "interest" in the sense of having a kind of objective stake or investment in something, which is at least morally recognizable. In that sense it was a sort of pre-property or anticipation of rights, or a kind of recognition of potential for rights and/or property. So rational m
  12. In "what you know to be true is mutable" I think he is using "what you know to be true" to mean "what you think according to your knowledge (or assumed knowledge) to be true" and not using "what you know to be true" (in this context) to mean that "the truth in reality of which I actually know".
  13. Too late to edit my posts: The Walt Disney principle is also mentioned in LP's essay "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy". https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-analytic-synthetic-dichotomy/ Which itself is included in ITOE. Of note in this paper is the following quote:
  14. This seems about right. Metaphysical possibilities only make any real sense when talking about the future. As for logical possibility or epistemic possibility, I think LP deals tangentially with that in his discussions of the arbitrary, and the scale of knowledge from possible to certain on the basis of some evidence, and more directly, making fun of it calling it a kind of "walt disney" standard (if you can imagine it, it's possible) which he mentions in a lecture series of his. My favorite talk by LP about empty claims of "It's possible" are from his talk about the OJ
  15. I would suspect you are right. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he did make general reference, elsewhere, to logical possibility as the Walt Disney principle or some very similar moniker... poking at the standard of possibility being what you could imagine and draw as say a cartoon. I think that might have been in his History of Modern Philosophy course.
  16. Interesting, logical possibility, presented as it is in that paper, seen through my lens of a mind, looks a lot like identifying the gaps left by our "ignorance" or "lack of knowledge", as "possible". From that article: " hobbits, could exist—there is nothing impossible or contradictory in the idea of there being diminutive, simple, fun-loving, big-footed creatures living in holes in the side of hills. These beings are possible in the sense that our minds can conceive them and see that their existence does not defy reason," It's like being able to deny certainty of admitting failu
  17. Proposed Example of Metaphysical and Epistemological Possibilities There is a black bag with 10 blue and 10 red discs in it. Each disc weighs and feels exactly the same. You have been asked to put your hand in the bag, grab one disc, and without looking make a guess as to whether it is blue or red, and then look at it Before you grab a disc, there is both "metaphysical" and "epistemological" possibility you will grab a blue disc, a red disc, or maybe use your free will to change your mind and refuse to grab any. Once you grab a disc, while your hand is in the bag, there
  18. You raise a truism as regards to different granularity or scales of reality and our corresponding knowledge of them varying in context. The science of billiard balls tells us what individual balls do whereas the science of thermodynamics tells us what vast collections of things "collectively" exhibit: we can with ignorance of every exact position of a gas molecule (and in fact ignorance of which particular atoms of gas are involved) know a collection of them will have certain relationships between properties we can predict to a certain degree of precision - temperature, pressure, volume for a
  19. First off, I am unsure of what you mean by "epistemological possibility" I'm more familiar with the idea of ignorance, simply there being knowledge which is missing to make a determination up to some level of specificity. Restricting the discussion to the present tense, all of reality IS as it IS. There is no hypothetical in being as it is being. Metaphysically there also is no possibility in this moment on its own, things ARE. Of course man is ignorant of a great many things, about things past and present, both of which necessitates a certain amount of speculation when speaking o
  20. I have not seen the bad videos you refer to, most I've seen from PragerU are put on by people other than Prager himself and generally are of higher quality than his rambling chats. Could you provide a few links to a few select videos which you believe are representative of how "bad" the quality (in your opinion badly argued, of bad intellectual quality, and improperly biased) of the majority of videos is?
  21. whyNOT Many legal born domestic Americans, which are spoiled, entitled, and lazy, are less "American" in the foundational and fundamental ways that matter, than are you. America is an idea, and they have lost it to the vices and weakness of childhood which they have not escaped... associated with the infantalization of the American adult.. leftism is a natural center of gravity for failed adults, manchildren, so the lurch to the left is almost no surprise. In any case you, as indeed Rand herself was, are more American in spirit, than the many unamericans born within America's b
  22. Much that you do in life might "make sense", but would it "make sense" to use up 90% of your time and energy making sure every single one of those little things you do is the absolute most optimal and correct thing to do.. up to a 99.8% margin of error... Being literally crippled with thought and living only 10% of your life... I would suggest, does not "make sense". Trusting your intuition to know when you need to really need to engage in serious rational thought about what you are doing, how to make a choice, how you are going about something, I would suggest "makes sense" i
×
×
  • Create New...