coirecfox
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by coirecfox
-
-
I just wanted to point out to a few people that infinity is not a number. It is a concept. It is used to represent the fact that the number series is non-terminating. You cannot count to infinity. If you say to yourself I am going to count to infinity, and then begin: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7--you have stopped at seven. In essence infinity has become seven. Not to say that infinity=seven, but that is where you stopped. "Infinity" is the potential number to which you could have gotten and "seven" is the actual. The concept 'infinity' bears no relation to things that exist, because everything that exists is finite.
-
Allow me to say this: Before I started reading Objectivist literature, fiction and non-fiction, I was a very different person than I am now. Though I was always actively searching for a standard by which to live my life(morality), the content to which I was ascribing cause many problems for me rationally and emotionally, so much so that I went through a time of depression. I was being treated for it with Prozac when I first picked up Atlas Shrugged. By the time I was done with the book, my depression had begun to fade away because I knew I had found the object of my searching. I never took another Prozac again. People I knew asked me what had changed in me. I was generally happier. I started to get along with my parents. Granted, it has still taken me a long time to CONSCIOUSLY integrate the proper concepts into my daily life, but I had found a sense of deeper peace and understanding that everything would be okay if I just kept working on it. That is the short story of how Objectivism made my life better. I'll write the longer version in my memoirs after my two terms in the White House are over.
-
Cole: ...I'm speechless. This:
For the purpose of our study, we prefer a definition that relies on objective, measurable criteria. We characterize a behavior as altruistic when 1) it is directed towards helping another, 2) it involves a high risk or sacrifice to the actor, 3) it is accomplished by no external reward, and 4) it is voluntary.Heroic altruism involves greater risk to the helper, whereas conventional altruism is not life-threatening to the helper.
< - - - Heroic - - - C O N T I N U U M - - - Conventional - - - >
Accompanied with a picture of a Jewish internment camp from the Holocaust?!?!?
-
Necessary: I know what you mean. I actually found the lack of philosophical discourse interesting. I do not think it detracts from the movie at all. I saw the movie almost as a piece of artwork: you cant have a lengthy philosophical discourse in a painting, it revolves around one theme. The movie takes the pleasure of ones own life and asserts it as GOOD, something I find lacking in our culture in general, except as almost a dirty secret between friends("Yeah we are going to help lots of people( and make a world of profit doing it, but shhhhhhhh).") Like I said, it also shows, though subtley, in the story of Bud's sister that a rational life of values yields more happiness than that of a slut obsessed with pleasure(note that SHE changes colors only after she does NOT have sex w/ that guy). I think that some things that are said in the movie can be taken as irrational, but any talk of emotions and feelings isolated from a full disscussion of their origins can be taken as irrational, and like I said before, that was not ultimately the point of the movie. Does that make sense?
-
Hal, I have to disagree with you here. I would say that it is possible that SOME academic philosophers may use such questions in the manner you suggest. It has been my experience thusfar however that MOST philosophers do not use such questions in this manner. They do indeed use them to "undermine [rational and intelligent peoples'] self-confidence, and induce in them exactly the kind of uncertainty [he's] experiencing now." My current philosophy professor derives extreme pleasure from introducing such questions, watching students fumble around trying to answer it(because they have never been taught the proper method of analyzing the question) and then giving them a "possible" answer, to which if you dont immediately ascribe, you will be given a sternly disapproving look from the professor and a statement that your position is "interesting."
-
*grumbles* Buncha young whippersnappers! Why in MY day we didn't have none of this here logical philosophy, no sirree! We had a buncha disconnected altruistic fiddle-faddle and we were GLAD of it because we had VALUES . . .
-
I picked up Atlas Shrugged one day at something like 5 oclock in the morning, I couldn't sleep and had finished whatever pos novel I had been reading. At this time I lived with a group of people that despised me (even though I paid the rent, the utilities, and the food bills) They were socialist, within that group I was nicknamed "Corporate Paul". I felt a sense of responsbility and obligation to take care of these people, while starving myself.
I finished Atlas Shrugged within 24 hours and 12 hours later I had moved everything from my apartment, cancelled the lease (paying out the nose to do so), and had the locks changed. Leaving them out on the streets. Atlas Shrugged, as it did for anyone reading this, changed my life-- for forced me out of the sewers I was living in.
I also read some sort of speech she gave to a graduating class of Westpoint that I enjoyed...but I cannot place)That would be "Philosophy: Who needs it?" in...Philosophy: Who needs it?
-
I have not. I will now though.
-
The first time I saw this movie (before I discovered philosophy) I didnt think much of it. I just finished watching it this evening and I must say that I was 'pleasantly' suprised.
... But seriously--this movie may be one of my new favorites. The way it depicts human pleasure as good seemed a refreshing change from some other movies of its day. And while the movie emphasizes the idea that pleasure is good, it does not do so in a hedonist manner. The girls dont become whores, and there are no orgys in the streets. Not only that but it has the classic story of Government oppression and a peoples' strugle against injustice. One of my favorite parts of this movie had to be the story of David/Bud's sister(played by Reese Witherspoon). She starts off as a slutty, dim angry young girl. By the end of the movie she is happy and studious, going off to college. The only element of the movie that may get in the way of enjoyment is how the kids get into their predicament in the first place, but once you get past that, the movie is a joy. -
-
-
I agree with EdwhoiscalledEd, here.
-
Has anyone seen this movie? It's out in selected cities, and the reviews look promising. I was wondering if it's worth the ten bucks to go see it.
-
Hal, who is Robert Nozick and where did he disprove that such a suggestion is impossible?
-
QUOTE(Megan Robinson @ Dec 11 2004, 02:57 PM)
PS: What!? No secret decoder rings!? ohmy.gif
I am legally restrained on public forums from making that known, so I always create the impression that no such secret decoder rings ever existed. But, since this is just between you and me (no one else is listening in, right?) the truth of the matter is that, until recently, the secret decoder rings have been used by the Objectivist cabal for several decades. Unfortunately, in recent years the quality of the rings has gone down considerably, so, in a concerted effort to modernize, the cabal developed a secret algorithm which encrypts hidden messages in text, and now, instead of the rings, we distribute secret decoder CDs to be used on the computers of cabal members.
Likewise the secret handshake is gone, and instead a special computer protocol is used automatically for instant recognition of computers that belong to the members of the cabal. Even the traditional cabal song is gone; we use an mp3 instead. And, we no longer excommunicate deviant members, but rather we just disconnect them from the network!
p.s. Good thing no one else is listening in on this. I wouldn't want knowledge of the Objectivist cabal to get out. biggrin.gif
And people say Objectivists don't have a sense of humor...
-
This is the same problem I had in my initial argument--the definition of life. Is it biological only, or does it have a philosophical influence as well? I contend that human life is defined both biologically and philosophically, and the philosophical part is what gives meaning to life. "Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death" Thus, if the attainment of values is not possible, human life no longer has value. For a rational person to realize this, suicide would be an affirmation of ones own life because you would be affirming that the attainment of (proper) values is good, and the inability to attain values is bad.
Keep in mind that such an analysis may only be done by the possessor of the life in question, as only he has a right to take his own life.
-
1. Ayn Rand (100%)
2. Aristotle (96%)
3. David Hume (91%)
4. Cynics (84%)
5. Aquinas (82%)
6. Nietzsche (81%)
7. Thomas Hobbes (81%)
8. John Stuart Mill (79%)
9. St. Augustine (77%)
10. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%)
11. Plato (74%)
12. Jeremy Bentham (71%)
13. Spinoza (67%)
14. Stoics (64%)
15. Epicureans (63%)
16. Nel Noddings (46%)
17. Kant (42%)
18. Ockham (30%)
19. Prescriptivism (19%)
1. a high
2. d high
3. e medium
4. d high
5. b high
6. a high
7. c medium
8. d high
9. a high
10. c high
11. c high
12. b high
-
He also often uses the principle of eminent domain to "acquire" others' property. Not to heroic if you ask me.
-
He wrote a book called "The Myth of the Robber Barons" in which he articulates the difference between market monopolists and coercive monopolists. Excellent read and full of great information.
-
R.W. Bradford writes in Liberty magazine that, as Fed chairman, "Greenspan (once) recommended to a Senate committee that all economic regulations should have fixed lifespans. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) accused him of 'playing with fire, or indeed throwing gasoline on the fire,' and asked him whether he favored a similar provision in the Fed's authorization. Greenspan coolly answered that he did. Do you actually mean, demanded the senator, that the Fed 'should cease to function unless affirmatively continued?' 'That is correct, sir,' Greenspan responded."
Bradford continues, "The Senator could scarcely believe his ears. 'Now my next question is, is it your intention that the report of this hearing should be that Greenspan recommends a return to the gold standard?' Greenspan responded, 'I've been recommending that for years, there's nothing new about that. It would probably mean there is only one vote in the Federal Open Market Committee for that, but it is mine.'"
I'm glad to hear that he still believes his own essay. My question is still: Why is he the Fed chair? Why didn't he refuse?
-
LOL...okay McGroarty you win that one. To be honest, I had no idea that precious metals had achieved the type of market that you guys are talking about. I would definitely agree that some of these other solutions are more sound than the Liberty Dollar.
I still want to stick it to the Fed though...to the mints I shall go...
-
Historically the fee levied for the coining of money is called "seigniorage"; when nations were on the gold standard, I'm pretty sure seigniorage was a very small percentage.
Thanks for that definition. I think the reason his mark-up is so great is that there are not a great deal of people offering the kind of product he offers. And he does a decent job marketing it. I'm sure if he had some more vocal competitors his prices would fall.
To be honest, this is the first I have heard of people attempting to return to a precious metal standard (though relative to most of you probably, I haven't been around all that long). I was excited just to see that. The initial appeal to me was the effectiveness with which Bernard claims the currency can be used. My problem is, I don't have the kind of money I would need to buy gold bars, or even coins for that matter.
Anyone want to make predictions on the fall date of the USD?
-
McGroarty: I wasn't saying that you had done any banking in any of those places. And I was not suggesting that you must exchange your money in that Marx house. The way you presented that information however made it seem like you were objecting to the currency merely because people of objectionable moral standing utilized it. I was not able to find where the NORFED sote said they had only two paid employees. If you could point me in the right direction I would be much obliged.
So you are suggesting that we "buy" currency in the same way that we buy bread or any other product? Just a cusory examination suggests a serious flaw in reasoning to me. You are suggesting that we should be satisfied or understanding of the idea of paying for the minting and storage of our currency "purchase".I can understand paying a service fee to a bank or institution for the service of exchanging one type of currency for another, but I would not want to pay a production fee for the exchanged currency as well. Non-profit doesn't mean "non-expense", and that expense is being passed on the the "currency consumer".
Why is that so objectionable? The costs of minting currency must be absorbed somewhere. They don't just dissapear. I don't see how a precious metal backed currency could work any other way. This is how it was done when there was a backed currency earlier in America's history. Not to say that there isnt a better way. I'm only asserting that this system has been utilized in the past and has worked efficiently. And many times more so than this absurd fiat money system. Addtionally the means of exchange are not supposed to be an investment. They are the means for making investments. You wouldnt have to pay the storage and minting costs, but try getting a store to accept a lump of silver, the quality and weight of which they may not be able to verify on hand. What you are esentially paying for is the ease of use that minting provides. Try paying for a $200 grocery bill in silver bullion. You wouldn't. You would use warehouse certificates representing $200 of silver. You are paying for the ease of use of storage. I don't understand from where your objection stems. Is a non-value backed...I take that back...a DEBT backed currency worth more to you than a commodity backed currency? Are you for a commodity backed currency at all?
-
You can buy the Liberty Dollar as $10 silver coins.Well, if some stranger said he'd give you IOUs for a certain amount of gold if you gave him a certain amount of dollar, you would probably be suspicious.Following up on my own, the $10 Liberty is backed by 1oz of silver. I checked, and that's worth about $7.60USD right now, but it's sold for $10USD, so you're losing about 30% to move to a currency that you can't even use in many places. Buying back to USD is based on the value of silver, so the loss is permanent. There is not parity in the exchange rate.Worse, according to the Liberty Dollar website when silver hits $10/oz, they're going to change over to the $20 Liberty Dollar bill representing 1oz, and the $10 representing only half an ounce, so you'll be looking at a 50% loss when you buy Liberty Dollars if they're still selling them at $1USD per Liberty Dollar, and you'll have two versions of the $10 Liberty Dollar bill in circulation with one worth twice as much as the other.
As to all of this: You are not buying just the silver, you are buying the silver plus minting costs plus storage costs. You don't get angry when you have to buy bread for much more than the cost of wheat do you? Silver bullion and silver coins are two different commodities. The change over does not work the way McGroarty says it does. If you have a ten $ certificate when the change over happens, you can exchange it for a 20 $ certificate right away. That is because your old $10 certificate is backed by one ounce of silver, and that is written on the certificate.
As to this, you should probably stop using the USD then, because Marxists, Christians, Libertarians, hedonists, Kantians, etc. all use it too. What a ridiculous objection.By the way, I just checked the site to see where I can get Liberty Dollars in Illinois. Here's one of our exchange centers:Karl Marx Center for The Peoples Currency
If that's not all silly enough, you can get some discounts by buying your Liberty Dollars "wholesale" or by participating in a multi-level marketing program where you get money for signing others up. This kind of flexibility in exchange rate is not compatible with a real currency.The Liberty Dollar is not a multi-level marketing program. It is a single tier referral program. The company that offers the Liberty Dollar is a nonprofit as well, so I don't see how it could be a MLM.
In the talk, he claimed that Texacos, Wal-Marts, Blockbusters and Pizza Huts were accepting them, and that 95% of the stores in Austin Texas were accepting them. If anyone is in Austin and would like to dial up a few random stores, I'd love to have my skepticism proven wrong.There was a local news station that did a story on the Liberty Dollar. It's on the Liberty Dollar site and it shows people using the currency in everyday situations.
people don't like reality
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Let us look at the issue of wage regulation from the standpoint of individuals. You have two people who are concerned with their own well-being and able to think for themselves. One man has a need for the other man's labor, lets say, to clean up his yard so he can hone his skills as a brain surgeon. Now, the brain surgeon offers the man $3.50 an hour to the laborer to clean his yard. The laborer says, actually I'd like $4.50 and hour. They will reach a compromise and the laborer will be paid $4 an hour. Both come away happy. A beneficial mutual exchage has taken place between two men who are rational and capable of providing for their own survival. (If either one is not happy with what the other one offers, there will be no exchange.) There is a third person off to the side who says, "That's not fair." Why isnt is fair? Both parties have agreed to a mutually beneficial exchange. What is not fair about it? And what right would the third person have to get involved in the transaction?