FrolicsomeQuipster
-
Posts
354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by FrolicsomeQuipster
-
-
Turns out people can type with boxing gloves on.
-
In 2010, I produced my third episode of “Freedom School” with an actual group of people in London (the entire Freedom School series is available as a playlist on youtube, here) who were members or supporters of the political party I lead in Ontario, Canada: Freedom Party of Ontario (FPO). At one point during the session, the issue arose of what an FPO candidate or representative should call him/herself if he faces the “Are you liberal, conservative, libertarian?” question. My position then – as now – is that the candidate/representative should not call himself an “Objectivist” (which is a term referring to someone whose personal philosophy is that identified by author/philosopher Ayn Rand), but I didn’t get into why I held that position (the conversation went off in a different direction). Recently (see e-mails below) two Objectivists who have watched episode 3 of Freedom School have asked for my reasons. I’ve decided here to present, briefly, my reasoning against using the term “Objectivist” to refer to ones political orientation in an electoral context, and also to explain what a FPO supporter (and all others who share FPO’s views on the proper way to govern) should call himself.
As a matter of describing my personal philosophy, I’d always say that I am an Objectivist. And, for all who areObjectivists and who are discussing their philosophy, I see nothing wrong with saying one is an Objectivist.
However, electoral politics is not and – if you want to win – cannot ever be equivalent to a discussion about your philosophy. A political party’s purpose is not to change anyone’s philosophy (indeed, most people will live and die without ever even trying to identify the philosophy that is guiding their own decisions and actions) or to educate the public about philosophy. A political party’s purpose is to win seats and thereby to make government do what the party believes government should be doing. A party – every party – is a power-seeker that may or may not know what to do with the power once it is obtained. If a party’s policies or election planks are guided by a philosophy, that might be a good thing (depending upon the philosophy), but that does not mean that the party should go about pushing its philosophy. Instead, it presents – to the extent it is *electorally* advantageous – the results of applying that philosophy to the issues at hand. Were a political party a restauranteur, it would sell the tasty dish, not the recipe, and it would list only the dishes that would encourage people to enter the restaurant. Just as the restaurant’s patron wants good food rather than a piece of paper with instructions on how to make it, the voter wants good governance, not a course in philosophy.
FPO is a party that does have a philosophy, but it is not a personal philosophy. Rather it is a philosophy for government decision making and action. FPO’s philosophy of governance determines its range of proposed solutions to issues facing the province. FPO’s philosophy does not restrict itself to the political branch of philosophy, but addresses the entire philosophical hierarchy, from metaphysics, to epistemology, to ethics, to politics (in that logical order). It is expressed in the Freedom Party International (“FPI”) logo (you can read my extended explanation about the logo here) as: “Reality. Reason. Self. Consent.”
-
Interview about them
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_rights
Also just went to the lexicon and I saw quite a bit more than one sentence.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_why_individual_rights
And smore:
-
Ditto on Leonid, morality is only about choice, inherent moral imperfection leads to the contradiction of a choice that isn't a choice.
-
On your first topic, there already is a great one called; "Atheism the Case Against God" Which I'd recommend whether you're going to write on the topic or not.
Its also has a pretty good part about skepticism if I recall correctly.
And there's never enough novels.
-
The mastermind method.
Go to some remote unpopulated island with costumes and a made up language declare yourself the overlooked indigenous population.
Why didn't anyone find you? Tunnels you were underground every time someone showed up, for "religious reasons".
Why make contact now? A peaceful reformation happened after "insert fake history here".
Lace the whole thing with appeals to self determination to the UN and make lots of fuzz about your peaceful culture and other bull.
Then when you're acknowledged keep giving lip service until they figure out and you've already got protection agreements from several forces.
The most important thing would be to functionally already have a working state apparatus and several local charities, the latter being misguidedly implied to be public institutions.
After a while you'll drop the culture bomb that the idea of "public ownership" is completely foreign and there was just a misunderstanding.
At that point they've already shown people that those institutions actually do work and they'd look like total asshats if they'd denounced it at this point.
If pulled off right whoever goes around pointing out what's actually is happening will look like a conspiracy nut.
I could even just leave this here cause a plan on some obscure forum describing what's happening would only make the whole thing less believable.
George Lucas kept the sale to disney secret and even bigger cover ups have been revealed.
You wouldn't even need all that many people, you'd just need to look as if there are a lot of people, or at least "enough" to realistically be granted self rule.
Masks as a part of the religion so one person could make multiple cameos.
Caves off limits to non believers, lots of torches visible, small conference rooms, professionally shopped pictures of large underground rooms.
The underground jig would also be a great reason why there's seemingly so many pale people.
The Luck method.
Win the jackpot and use funds to make the prophecies of a cargo cult come true, give out lots of intellectual ammo too and use support to win local elections then start nagging about secession.
-
I always hear decried that you can't be certain, but I don't think there's any ambiguity left when there's people locked in someones basement for years.
-
To me the initial question sounded like; "If we had a sense that told us what's inside of a specific initially empty box it would be invalid because we'd first have to put something inside."
-
Confusing a mystic is like tying a knot in a couple of cables that were already tangled together.
-
You can't read their minds, but if they hold the rules of math and proclaim they're computing a certain calculation you can predict their conclusion.
Similarly if they truthfully proclaim to hold or show himself to act according to certain values.
To claim that someone who holds true to pacifist ideas will condemn self defense isn't mentalism but the acceptance what both of those mean.
I can't say I'd put my bets on her sexuality based analytical prowess though, but then again I know of no attempt by her to exercise it.
-
You can only imagine it if you also omit the things that would make it impossible.
It was a square and in the same way time and aspect it was not a square.
That's unimaginable.
It was a square and when you looked at it from the side it was a circle.
It was a square but a moment later it was a triangle.
It was a square but its edges blended in with the background and on it was painted a red hexagon.
These and and what you mentioned are ways of saying that anything was also a divergent thing in a different way with the means omitted.
Because the contradiction is omitted.
You can't imagine both the object and all the laws involved being what they are and not what they are at the same time.
Say you know the identity of ice and water in relation to each other, if you want to imagine an ice cube sinking you have to first omit one of the factors that would make it impossible.
You could just have something that looks like an icecube sink, you could suspend the applicability of their relations to each other, you could say it is the will of Dog.
What you can't do is hold the full context while applying and at the same time not hold the full context and or apply it.
-
I've heard Peikoff make jokes about things randomly turning into Hegel but apparently its actually not all that uncommon.
-
I don't think the quote was only referring to the retrospective sense.
But I think it does presuppose a familiarity with both states.
When you're having your first few dreams as a baby you don't fully grasp the difference yet, but its grasped so quickly and deeply that it takes years of chanting "you can't know" to unlearn.
-
I just finished the lectures, they were quite good. I especially liked the parts on oral communication.
-
-
No, science is a specific way of acquiring knowledge.
I thought that was epistemology, and that only being the explanation on how we do, not a range of options.
Isn't it so that if something isn't acquired a certain way you can't even say its knowledge?
It's the last two words of that definition which is the source of my confusion on this matter. Science requires empirical testing. How does one conduct scientific experiments while philosophizing?
I've just finished listening to a lecture series where that question came up.
https://estore.aynrand.org/p/119/induction-in-physics-and-philosophy-mp3-download
Here's a hint though, you've set up a standard for knowledge, an epistemological standard, before establishing epistemology, and you completely skipped metaphysics.
Philosophy is about why would you even need standards at all. The idea of any scientific method isn't self evident or accepted arbitrarily.
-
Isn't science just another word for knowledge?
-
Being secular we can of course happily continue throwing around leather bound copies of Atlas Shrugged.
-
I think there might be quite a cultural divide here, in my time the most hard headed people I've met have been women.
Wishy washy attitudes have been most intense in the men I've met.
But this is coming from a European, and though I'd classify miss Rand as American in every other respect she did come from this continent.
-
I for one think there are some great reasons to use reason and no reason not to.
Someone who regards all knowledge as arbitrary however will simply rephrase that premise whenever they hear it said that it isn't in a specific field.
He'd probably just as soon say you have faith in; cows door knobs the color blue and the letter I.
-
I'm currently listening to the audio version of Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" and loving it.
-
Ask not what the internet has done to you, ask what you have done with the internets?
-
So from the 90s to 00s to 10s there's been near doubling per decade.
Whoohooo!
-
Ayh agree, but why not universalised altruists? As they take altruism and apply it to everyone else.
Truth about the Atlas Shrugged Part 3 Kickstarter
in Events & Announcements
Posted
A movie of Atlas Shrugged, written by committee?