Mindy
-
Posts
463 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Mindy
-
-
I'm not entirely sure I see the relevance. Surely the question is whether one agrees with Rand's philosophical ideas, rather than whether one obtained one's philosophical ideas from her. These days I can imagine a person who got their knowledge of Rand's ideas entirely from secondary sources like Peikoff's book Objectivism or Smith's book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. One's major concern should be over what one believes and why, not where one first encountered a given idea.
For what it's worth I do have some knowledge of the history of philosophy from sources other than Rand. I find the choice of "A is A" as an example of an idea present in both Rand and Aristotle somewhat amusing, insofar as Aristotle did not explicitly formulate the Law of Identity. It's implied by his formulations of the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle, but he doesn't quite come out and say it. If memory serves the Law of Identity wasn't explicitly stated until sometime in the medieval period.
The person who put that question used it to abuse the OP. The writer of that question chided the OP for "leaving Objectivism" when his valuable philosophical ideas were owed to Rand. The OP had said he had found many basic ideas of Objectivism elsewhere in philosophy. The question was a challenge to that, since the OP agreed with most or all of Objectivism.
The question is not the tool, logically, that the abusive writer tried to make of it. I pointed that out in the interests of logic. I seem to be in a distinct minority when it comes to respecting the interests of logic, but that remains the case.
Now, you want to know whether it isn't more important what one believes than where one got those ideas from. Wildly out of context here. What you've said isn't outright false, but it is contextually retarded.
Mindy
-
All such responses can be read in the trash sub-forum.
The point is that how is one to know that a post has been removed at all? Do you expect readers to peruse the trash can?
Mindy
-
Why is there not a note in a thread from which an individual post has been removed and trashed, noting that fact? The give-and-take of the discussion becomes distorted when a response is silently "disappeared."
Mindy
-
Then he knows that Rand was the source of his philosophy. He knows that he got his ideas from Rand; that is what "source" means.
That may be what "source" sometimes means, but it isn't what "ideas" or "philosophy" means, and, more importantly, it is not what you meant to ask!. You said, "the source." This is abyssmal, scurrilous rationalization.
Mindy
-
Please note that his question was not about who originated each of the ideas, but who was the source of the OPs philosophy. Do you understand the difference, and why invoking irrelevant historical antecedents is, well, irrelevant?
How does the OP know who was the source of "his philosophy" if all he knows of philosophy is that Ayn Rand says "A is A?" If he doesn't know what Aristotle said, but he encounters Aristotle's ideas as incorporated in Rand's system, all he can say is that he heard of some ideas from reading Rand, who gives non-specific credit to Aristotle for some of the ideas she expresses. How can he know, until he reads Aristotle?
Alas, I am beset with irrelevancies, as here.
Mindy
-
Is Ayn Rand the source of your philosophy, or not?
The problem is that Rand is the source of most Objectivists' knowledge of philosophy. They don't know if she is the source of the ideas themselves until they study philosophy itself.
Mindy
-
.Intellectual property rights are not a primary, they are the tool which allows people who created the TV shows to reap the fruits of their work. If such benefiting is (absolutely) not an issue, then talk of intellectual property rights is meaningless.
I find this argument interesting. The principle of property rights is formulated so that whatever a person produces is his, independent of anyone else's appraisal of its value or benefit. One's purposes, goals, tastes, and existential context contribute to the desirability, the valuation, the fact of and the degree of benefit of what one produces. As they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
When the violation of property rights is defended because someone has decided the creator cannot obtain any benefit from his product, principles are being broken in favor of someone's presumed omniscience as to what the inventor/creator might presently, or in any future scenario, find of use in his own product. Whatever the poster's purposes, this argument is an attack on principles per se.
Mindy
-
Even at the Georgia Institute of Technology, many of the undergraduates here indicated to me personally that they were not taught evolution in the Georgia public school system.
I grew up in the Georgia public schools, and evolution was, indeed, taught, and there was no hint of any religious alternative. That was before today's college students were even born, though. I would suggest that such failures in the public schools are not special to Georgia.
Mindy
-
I'm starting to be persuaded by the arguments for anarcho-capitalism. If I do end up being completely persuaded, I would no longer be able to call myself an objectivist. Beyond that, I'm also starting to question the value of being associated with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While agree with the tenets of Oism, I'm starting to wonder why I should specifically stick with the system of Oism rather than a more enumerative/academic approach to those same tenets. If you have any thoughts on why one should stick with a collected system rather than the alternative, I'd love to hear them.
What, specifically, is this alternative? Where is there an "enumerative/academic approach to those same tenets?" Can you give one or two examples of the specific alternatives you are choosing over?
As to "why one should stick with a collected system rather than the alternative," that is, I'm afraid, a no-brainer. Why prefer something more complete over something less so? Why prefer something integrated over something less so? You get the point.
Being known to be an Objectivist while in academia is bothersome, no doubt. A personal warning, if I may: take yourself, your education, your path, very seriously.
Mindy
p.s. What in anarchism is seeming sensible--it isn't a very sound idea about society.
-
Pg. 185 of OPAR suggests:
Still, to equate promises in the dark with selfishness is to default on the responsibility to grasp for ones self the issues at hand.
Yes the seniors want to have their medical bills paid. Over the decades, they have had their money stolen from them, albiet by their votes (they did get what they voted for).
So, do you take responsibility, yourself, for Obama's health care bill? Wouldn't that follow from your logic, above?
And what default is there for the millions of sensible people who did not vote for government growth?
I don't understand how you can miss this.
Mindy
-
I am trying to identify at what point is something is Objective and something is Subjective. If I say that Objectivity is the relationship between my mind and reality, then what relationship does subjectivity describe? The relationship between my mind and itself?
Let me try again.
Subjectivity (in your sense) means that prejudice, rather than logic, directed you to reach your opinion or conclusion.
When we learn to talk, we begin to follow procedures in forming our beliefs and opinions. (Grammar itself is a very early such procedural discipline.)
From simple sentences, we learn the methods and rules that lead to knowing the truth, forming logical conclusions, etc. Then, we either follow those methods, as a matter of personal choice, or we violate them, take short-cuts, bias the evidence, jump to conclusions, etc. If we do not follow those methods, we are being subjective. If we do not choose to follow those methods, we are unlikely to arrive at the truth. Being subjective almost always means error.
"Subjective" is roughly synonymous with "prejudiced."
Sorry I pontificated instead of being specific.
Mindy
-
The variable contributing to the extent of one's self-esteem is not related to one's IQ, level of education, professional-level career, or such considerations. The variable that sets one's self-esteem pertains to that aspect of your personality that chooses to face facts, no matter the cost.
Living qua man is living as the most intelligent sort of animal on the planet, but the key to that is the fact that reason requires a self-imposed discipline. Whatever one's IQ, knowledge, experience, etc., we all face exactly the same challenge to observe the primacy of existence over our wishes, preferences, fears, past commitments, etc.
Your self-esteem is based on your intellectual honesty, not your intellectual power.
Mindy
-
Fascinating to hear of your past and your present enterprises. Welcome.
Mindy
-
Use of large words is not proportional to how good your writing is. Common mistake.
You're right, but in this case the technical classifications, etc., have a purpose. The University ought be populated by uhh, life-forms(?) that are intellecually mature. They fail that miserably. The contrast between the sophisticated terminology and the base evolutionary and intellectual nature of the people at the university is a clever technique to mark that.
Well, that's my interpretation.
Mindy
-
Let me guess--nobody who has posted above has ever earned much money, have you?
You haven't paid the many, many tens of thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes that those senior citizens have. You haven't had to do without, decade after decade, with only the dwindling hope of governmental integrity that you will ever enjoy the delayed fruits of your efforts.
These seniors just want to get someone else to pay their medical bills? They have paid their medical bills AND social security. They have had to forego investments that would have matured to significant savings by now.
There is just one word for the attitude expressed in this thread: stupid.
Mindy
-
First, I am not bothering to respond to what I see as many errors in several of the preceding posts.
It is only in the relationships that produce knowledge that some objects become, also, subjects. That means animals with sensory organs, basically. Being a subject, being a mind, is wholly an objective phenomenon. As Rand so brilliantly emphasized, the mind, too, is an existent with an identity.
Bats hear things we can't, so their subjectivity is objectively different from ours. A deaf person's subjectivity is different from a hearing person's. Note that even these differences are definite, categorical. They make a difference in the range of knowledge, or the sort of knowledge an individual is capable of, but they do not invalidate anything. This is the metaphysical nature of the subjective nature of some life forms.
Subjectivity involves processing. Some of that processing (senosry-perceptual) is automatic, and what is automatic is error-free. Some is deliberate, reflective, methodological, normative, and thus chosen (logical processes.) It is in the realm of the deliberate processing of knowledge that "subjective" in the pejorative sense arises.
Divergences from the norms of conceptualization, propositional thinking, and reasoning (that is, being unreasonable or irrational,) are due to some subjective factor. Externally-produced subjective factors that interfere with applying the norms of thought and reason include over-stimulation, such as occurs under emergency conditions, extreme fatigue, illness, intense emotions related to situational factors comparable to emergency conditions, etc.
The most common factor that produces subjective rather than objective results is prejudice. Pre-judging an issue means ignoring the evidence in order to get a result that is more desirable. There are many different specific things that underlie prejudice--guilt, fear, convenience, denial, etc., but the way they all subjugate cognitive processing is the same.
It is crucial to identify the arena of thought in which the term "subjective" is used. The Lexicon gives several entries of these different arenas. In metaphysical contexts, subjectivity is simply another fact. As thinkers, subjectivity in the metaphysical sense is of the upmost importance and significance to us. In an epistemological context, it is usually negative, but not if external factors are responsible. It is critical to realize that a knee-jerk response to the word as meaning false or self-indulgent, is a mistake.
Mindy
-
Again, everything else is greatly helpful, and I especially agree about a revised ending. Your suggestions have gotten my mind working. Thanks again.
Great. If you're not big on water, you might not know that the wake always trails the object moving through water, so that meant to me that you were leading the others... just a detail.
Eager to hear more.
Mindy
-
Okay, I understand now. Then the list is Dwayne, Eiuol, & CapitalistSwine as being proposed for chat-mods.
BTW, for those who have not noticed, since this thread, one forum member has volunteered to be forum-moderator and has been made one: Sapere Aude. Thanks for volunteering.
Voounteering? I thought OO. was hiring moderators.
Mindy
-
This has merit. Some funny lines.
Comments: pinpricks don't glow, they are sharp
I don't know anything about infant planets as regards their drifting, so this simile doesn't clarify anything
Your description of "smudges collide..." is very nice.
"primordial chaos" is trite
If the "others" are "sharking" in your wake, they are behind you, and can't be injuring your self-esteem, can they?
You need to find an indirect way to say that those "sharks" are vice-prone. From what you've given, the reader can't understand why you characterize them as such.
Who is Rex?
You'll have to give some explanation of why a fascinating class seems to drag...
I find myself wishing that this time, when we hear of the effect of his glasses, when his vision disintegrates, the peace of mind he's derived from a rational discussion leaves him undisturbed by mere poor eyesight.
I hope, if you do re-write, you'll post it again.
Mindy
-
Though you quoted me, I assume you were replying to CapitalistSwine.
Either way, I suggest that everyone should cease discussing Mindy's qualifications etc. in this thread.
No, I was responding to the list you wrote of people interested in being chat moderators. You mentioned chat moderators, so that is what I took your context to be.
I, on the other hand, think people should feel free to discuss my qualifications--as long as they actually do so. But then, that wouldn't be not ceasing, properly speaking. If the thread is about moderators, where better to discuss an individual's qualifications to be a moderator?
Mindy
-
I refer you to the bitterness between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Get a good history of their fight, often conducted via the groupies (aka supporters) of each side. It clearly was not about politics alone: personality loomed large and did not paint either side in a good light. If those two ever meant to set up a government somewhere, they could count me in.
Sorry, for aiding and abetting a post that could take us off-topic. So, here... back on topic....
From a quick read of this thread, I see the following people have volunteered: Dwayne, Eiuol, Mindy, CapitalistSwine (if I missed someone, please tell).
Anyone who uses chat (or would like to, but does not because of the atmosphere) and who wishes to volunteer or to recommend another name, please feel free to send a PM to any Forum Moderator, suggesting the name. Stating your reasons for the choice would help. In addition, if there are additional comments about the the names already proposed which anyone does not want to make in public, a PM would be appropriate for that as well. Again, reasons would help.
I did not express interest in being a chat moderator. And I am not interested in being such. Don't know how you got that idea.
Mindy
-
I am not too personally concerned with the forum moderation myself since most of my time spent there is reading and all suggestions I would have made have been made by me or others here and will hopefully be implemented. As far as the chat room we desperately need to get a 2nd moderator on,
That is all I have to say about this at this time.
This is a response to me? I don't see the relevance.
Mindy
-
So, when does the decision about moderators get made? I'm winning the unpopularity contest hands-down, I think I'm a shoe-in.
Mindy
-
Where did you get that impression? As far as love and friendship is concerned, love (I assume you mean the romantic kind) is by definition above friendship and unchosen family.
I've never heard it suggested in any of Rand's writing that career should come *first*, above love. A career is a central and integrated set of goals relating to the productive work you do. That does not mean it comes first in a hierarchy of value, other values can be equally important. I agree that it really doesn't matter what career the other person has, still, wouldn't career goals that coincide only further increase the level of shared value? To use a fictional example, Dagny and Hank had differing careers, though success in their respective careers only benefited the other. Dagny provided the trains and railroad system, Hank provided the metal for the rails so the railroad could run trains at higher speed. Such a trade of value only further enhanced the love the two felt for each other. Neither career nor love is thought of as more important, the two values can be equally important and beneficial.
When Dominique asked Roark to give up architecture for her, he told her he wouldn't. That may be where the OP is coming from.
However, what Dominique was asking simply could not be done. Roark could not be the man he was if he gave up on the career he wanted, for the reason she had in mind. He would then be a coward, and what was extraordinary about himself, and her, would die. As desirable as it was--an ache in every muscle to say yes, seize her, and submerge himself in the reward his life deserved--he knew his identity, and hers made it impossible.
I don't think the application of this to making romantic evaluations of others is warranted, or has a precedent in the novels.
Mindy
Introduction and Personal Notes
in Introductions and Personal Notes
Posted
It's just possible that you and I live in the same neighborhood. Either way, welcome to Objectivism Online. There are definitely factions here.
Mindy