slacker00
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by slacker00
-
-
Questions to any men here who were circumcised as children:
Would you sue your parents for the dammage they've done to you? Would you undergo a medical treatment to restore your penis? Do you think your life would have been better had your parents spared you such mutilation?
1. I wouldn't sue my parents for a variety of reasons which has nothing to do with anything worth mentioning in this thread.
2. I think I would get the medical treatment. Obviously, I'd have to do my homework and be convinced that there weren't risks I wouldn't be willing to take. The cost might be an issue. I'd definitely consider it. But it probably simply isn't a reality for me. I mean, all they would be doing is stretching skin. I guess I have done some research, I wasn't impressed with what I had found. Nothing can bring back that lost skin. It would be purely cosmetic and that was never the issue for me.
3. Absolutely. Obviously, how would I really know? Maybe the horror stories about smegma dick cancer are true and I'd already be dead. But, maybe they took too much off mine or something, I'll spare you guys the details.
-
Kurt, you should probably go back a couple pages where I started this argument.
To clarify, this is actually a thread hijack by me. I should have known better. I'm arguing concepts of method, which has nothing to do with the thread up to that point.
But I think you're on the right track. I am arguing an imaginary God, by definition, is the basis for religion. But, I should clarify that we must differentiate between the imaginary Christian God, the imaginary Jewish God, the imaginary Muslim God. Even futher we might need to allow for the imaginary Catholic God versus the imaginary Lutheran God versus the imaginary Mormon God, etc. Just the word "God" can be fairly abstract, which might be tripping some people up. The proper understanding will certainly vary on context, but still functions as a hierarchy. There are some concepts about God which transcend all monotheistic religions, or at least the Judeo-Christian tradition.
This whole topic is fairly involved and isn't simple. But neither is complex analysis mathematics! haha
-
Yes but it's not government's responsibility to placate the outrage of an outside observer.
I'm talking about the victim.
But I guess it's ok for parents of an infant to snip off any little bits of skin here and there to pacify whatever whims they might have. An earlobe here, no big deal. Maybe snip down the nose to look like Michael Jackson. Maybe some face tattoos like Mike Tyson? Maybe the kid will grow up fine. Does that make the Frankenstein plastic surgery moral?
I agree, it's a tribal thing. Humans have been doing all this crap since prehistory. When does the individual have a right to reject this tribal stupidity? Ever?
-
God is a floating abstraction which can provide no insight into reality.
Can you link me to some proof of this assertion? It's ok if you can't. I do recognize the difficulty of legitimate proof.
You are basically making a blanket assertion which is opposite of my assertion. Funny how some ask me for proof but others may post assertions without proof.
As for insight into the minds of those who believe in God, psychology (another field full of abstractions, can provide an excellent insight into that. Floating abstractions still cannot.Psychology might add some perspective, but it is still a young science. I expect any perspective about the mind of a believer of God verses the mind of a non-believer of God is very limited science.
-
You're making a claim that the imaginary concept of God can be useful for methodological reasons.
Yes.
One argument you've offered is that some other, unrelated imaginary concepts are useful for methodological reasons.I was making the case that contradictory & imaginary concepts fit within the scope of Objectivism. So, we are in agreement here, I assume.
However, that argument has no bearing on whether the imaginary concept of "God' is useful in the same way.Absolutely. We are in agreement that an imaginary God concept plays no role in mathematics with which I am familiar.
The second argument you've offered is that religion is real. It denotes something real. Once again, this has no bearing on whether the concept of "god' is useful in the same way as the concept "religion" is.I'd say the concept of an imaginary God is basically what defines religion, depending on how we want to define religion. But, please, let's just use the casual definition. It's not useful to split hairs here. Can we not agree that God & religion are tightly integrated?
You have not actually offered proof, nor an example, of the methodological need that you claim is useful.I gave examples. Proof is rarely trivial. I was hoping that we could agree about the role the so called imaginary God concept has played in the course of history, art, literature, politics, morality, law, ethics, etc. This is not only the case in ancient history, but still exists today. I made all of these points already. Maybe you missed my original post.
You end up concluding "it has certain applications", without giving a notion of what those applications are. They cannot be hypothetical, but then, what are they?Here, I'll quote my previous explanations in the posts above which you may have missed.
Even though God is imaginary, God plays a critical role and forms a basis for Western culture. Isn't it critical to meaningful interpretation of Western history to understand Christianity? The American system of justice has certainly been influenced by Christian morality and continues to be. Even politics is shaped by the religious right. It's absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge God as a force affecting the world, even if it's imaginary in concept.
I think it's worth acknowledging this imaginary God as relevant in concepts of method regarding how to deal with specific elements of reality, namely society in general as well as politics, law, and history in specific. It'd be nice to dismiss this imaginary God, but that would be rejecting that part of reality which is tightly woven into my daily live and the lives of the rest of you too, if you just open your eyes and see it for what it is and deal with it rationally.
No, it isn't proof. It's an appeal to common sense. If you reject any of these specific claims, you need to address the specific claim. Never again proclaim, "You're wrong" and just walk away. That is extremely rude and insulting to me. I do appreciate this final clarification of your original statement.
-
The people who call for circumcision to be illegal are giving power to the government to prevent people from doing everything of comparable severity to their children. And since the bad consequences of circumcision are so rare (and no one here, no matter how passionately declaring that this is genital mutilation, offered any real evidence that children's lives are likely to be seriously impacted), you're pretty much giving power to the government over a massive ammount of things.
I think the power of government intervention into parenting should be limited to actual, demonstrable cases of abuse, abuse meaning that which will permanently damage a child.
Yep, that's exactly what Ayn Rand said. About government. About the citizenry at large however, she said the exact opposite: nothing has to be positively justified.
What about individual rights? Doesn't the government have the responsibility to protect the individual rights of the citizens?
I'd say it's a right to not have needless and senseless cosmetic surgery mandated on one individual by another. Or maybe you'd be fine with the possibility that any random person could molest or mutilate your body like that when you are not in a position to protect yourself.
-
Nope, the onus is yours.
So, basically, the onus is on me to explain your objection to myself. I just want be clear. You want me to read your mind.
-
Nope, the onus is yours.
First of all, you are the one making a claim. Defend your claim.
Second of all, I made my claim and I am defending my claim. When one tells me "You are wrong.", I say "ok, explain WTF are you saying.". Then the guy walks away all smug and say, "You lose, the onus is on you.". Wonderful discussion.
-
I think the problem is a tendency to sanctify the phallus; equating even an inconsequential alteration as castration.
Isn't inconsequential a value choice best left to the individual doing the valuing?
Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually.
--“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.
But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment—just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!—an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value.
-- “The Meaning of Sex,” For the New Intellectual, 99
-
No, it doesn't. You're mistaken.
Please explain.
-
God is not the force affecting the world, the belief in God is. It is absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge that real, living, breathing people have such a belief, and that it affects the world. The term typically used is "religion"; but, if that implies organization, one can use the term "theism".
It's more accurate to use the terms that they use. Simply invoke a liberal use of the word imaginary as a prefix for key concepts, such as God.
Otherwise I think we are all in agreement. God is as real as complex math or any other similar theoretical field of study. It's just an imaginary abstraction which can provide unique insight, despite the fact that it is a logical contradiction to the basic axioms of reality. God isn't real in an axiomatic sense, but certainly has applications with respect to methodology.
-
Since three others have given their personal testimony, I'll give mine. I'm cut and I wish I'd had a choice about it.
I think it's symbolic castration to further invoke the slave morality of the ancient Jews. I hope nobody here needs a speech from me about how religion is designed to destroy a man's ego, to enslave his mind, etc. Circumcision is just more evidence of it.
As for pierced ears & tattoos, no child should have that done against their will either. Plus, a pierced ear is not a chopped sex organ. It would be more like cutting off a child's ears at birth. It's just useless skin, right?
-
Well, sure, but so has the Sun, the wind, the rain, and the Earth. Pagans have a closer grasp on reality than current mainstream religions - at least their gods have referents in reality. Moreover, their religion enjoyed a far longer run than religions of today; lasting for 10's of thousands of years.
From a historical perspective, understanding the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God is important, but that's about it.
You're rejecting my claim that God and religion influences modern politics and law, not to mention culture in general? God isn't dead by a long shot in many people's eyes. I think it's worth acknowledging this imaginary God as relevant in concepts of method regarding how to deal with specific elements of reality, namely society in general as well as politics, law, and history in specific. It'd be nice to dismiss this imaginary God, but that would be rejecting that part of reality which is tightly woven into my daily live and the lives of the rest of you too, if you just open your eyes and see it for what it is and deal with it rationally.
-
There are a couple of threads on this. The main one comes from a post that the newly-minted Dr Hsieh started via her blog after listening to one of Dr Peikoff's podcasts that had material on the subject.
JJM
Thanks for the links. I did a search, but I bet I made a typo or something so nothing came up.
Sounds like Mr. Peikoff and I are 100% on the same page, so that's a relief.
The whole topic was a revelation to me today, reading some atheist stuff about the horrors of religion and I guess the topic moved me enough to seek out answers.
-
Could the concept of God fit within the Objectivist concept of method?
I know there's a ton of stuff that fits this category according to concept of method ITOE p 46.
I'll speak about the mathematics field regarding concept of method because that's my field of professional specialty. Math is mostly conceptual methods which only abstractly relate to material reality, if at all. In fact some mathematical concepts directly contradict other very basic mathematical concepts. The basic example is the imaginary number i, which is defined as the square root of -1. You can't multiply a number by itself and get -1, try it. But the concept of the imaginary number i is the basis for a large branch of mathematics which has many applications in technology. In fact, when I post this message, this "imaginary" concept has played a role in you getting this message.
Might we say the same about "God"? Even though God is imaginary, God plays a critical role and forms a basis for Western culture. Isn't it critical to meaningful interpretation of Western history to understand Christianity? The American system of justice has certainly been influenced by Christian morality and continues to be. Even politics is shaped by the religious right. It's absolutely realistic and rational to acknowledge God as a force affecting the world, even if it's imaginary in concept.
-
What does Objectivism say about circumcision?
I know Rand never mentioned it, specifically, unless I somehow missed it. But there should still be some interpretations or guidelines with respect to reality, rationality, rights, etc, which can help guide this decision.
Personally, I think it's disgusting. It's religious barbarianism meant to cut man down. It's a violation of rights. It's a sin against the greatness of man to mutilate his body in a way which may humble him until he dies.
If I may say so, I hope if anyone here has a male (or female) child, they will not follow these religious traditions and end this crime against man's ego. Thank you.
- Dreamspirit and therights
-
2
-
That's completely uncalled for. If you had said you don't think Rand ought to mention God favorably, your response would be understandable (well, a wee bit more). However, you simply commented that you did not realize she was so disposed. The solution is to read what she wrote, in order to find out how she was disposed.
I'm sorry if I'm breaking the code of ethics around here. But I'm sick of the implied accusation that I'm a troll who has never opened an Ayn Rand book. Maybe I'm one of those idiots that can read and reread her words and the ideas just don't stick. There are certainly people in this world who are mentally defective. I don't believe I am mentally defective, but the mentally defective may also have the defect of not knowing what they don't know. I'm just sick of the useless advice. Do you seriously think that I'm not reading and rereading the books as well as studying other materials as I'm taking part in these discussions?! Saying "Go read a book" is an insult to me, you might as well say "Sit down and and STFU". At least that has less intellectual dishonesty attached.
My understanding about Rand and God is that she was an atheist, to put it simply. But in the video, she seems to be acknowledging the existence of God, at least in the theoretical sense. This is a big difference to what I've seen her say anywhere else. Was she just humoring Tom Snyder and being polite? Even that, seems somewhat contrived, but that's the best explanation I can give. Apparently I'm completely clueless because I haven't read enough Rand books yet.
Is God the creator of the universe? Not of existence has primacy over consciousness.
Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance", it is causality.
Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.
etc
Wouldn't it still require her to be consistent? I mean, in one place I hear her saying, "God doesn't exist.", then I hear what she says in the Tom Snyder video above. I agree that it's derivative. It still makes me wonder.There are a few existing threads on atheism etc. Rand was an atheist, but not primarily so, nor militantly so. Not primarily so, because atheism is about a negative. It is a rejection of theism, and requires a positive viewpoint as a primary. Not militantly so... primarily because she saw that it was not a primary.softwareNerd, I was wondering if you could possibly cut and attach this God discussion to this thread. I searched the forum, and it would have been the most appropriate thread to launch my discussion. I apologize for my mistake. I thought there might be a simple explanation, such as that she was talking about Spinoza's God or something.
-
Hull has obviously returned to his spot under the bridge. Is there any point in continuing the thread?
Why not?
What would you like to discuss?
-
If you will read more of what she wrote, you will know.
Translation: You have not been sufficiently brainwashed. Keep trying.
Seriously. If there's a concept or fact which is up for debate, at least that's something to which I can apply reason.
-
At 1:12
I'm way way off topic, but I finally got a chance to watch this. At the very end Rand & Snyder exchange "God bless you.", in addition to discussing God briefly. I never knew Rand was so agreeable to using the word God.
-
Well there's two things here.
First, something illegal is not inherently immoral. More so now than ever with all the non-objective laws that exist. What Madoff did was clearly both illegal and immoral because he attempted to do business through fraudulent means (faking reality).
Second, even if, through some freak coincidence, Madoff lived his entire life without being caught his life and well being would still suffer. There's an excellent
that demonstrates this well.He basically did live his entire life without getting caught. He just turned 71. What's the average lifespan for a human male? I bet there's a lot of people that would take that deal, live like a king for the majority of an adult life span. Then face the consequences of sitting in a virtual retirement home to play out the rest of one's life.
The YouTube guy is basically preaching the same thing as any Christian Church. Just replace the word reality for the word God. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying. The moralizing in this case isn't any kind of revelation.
-
Personally, I don't think either needs to be redefined.
But both selfish and RSI use the concept of "one's own advantage." If people agreed as to what is to one's own advantage, people would agree on what it means to be selfish. Same thing for RSI.
Not to beat a dead horse, but my problem with selfish doesn't revolve around being at advantage. That's a pretty small point in this whole debate. But I'll address advantage as long as you brought it up.
1: superiority of position or condition <higher ground gave the enemy the advantage>
2: a factor or circumstance of benefit to its possessor <lacked the advantages of an education>
3 a: benefit, gain ; especially : benefit resulting from some course of action <a mistake which turned out to our advantage> bobsolete : interest 2a
4: the first point won in tennis after deuce
I'm just not sure who might be speaking out against those that try to benefit or advantage themselves. There's just no extra negative baggage that I can see in the definition. One would have to point that out to me.
Like I said in my other thread regarding the definition of selfish, it's the extra crap that they tack on which makes the definition of selfish seem unwholesome. Rand was using a classic definition, which didn't have the extra baggage. But that definition seems all but lost in the present day. I'm not drilling down into how it happened or why it happened. I'm simply making a case that it is a fact and that it must be addressed, all of this being addressed in the other thread.
Luckily, words like RSI or advantage seem to still be clean, as far as I can tell. As I addressed in my very first thread, capitalism also seems clean, as far as the dictionary is concerned.
-
Thanks Ryan, that's a good response.
I was actually just being snarky. The fact that Madoff went to prison has nothing to do with anything. It's hindsight, which is always 20/20 vision. It's results-oriented, after the fact, which is a mistake. It completely ignores ethics. It's also the common reason, IMHO, why the general population make mistakes with words like selfishness. It's an oversimplification.
Besides, Madoff knew the risks & rewards going into his venture. He's an old man, he's lived a good life for a long time. In prison, he won't be bunking with Bruno to Butcher. He'll be living in some kind of minimum security country club. Madoff's prison cell and facilities will be nicer than my current apartment. Madoff is doing just fine, despite the fact that he took a very high-risk, high-reward gamble and lost. People gamble all the time in business. If we really want to drill down into Madoff's behavior, we need to examine his ethics, which is no easy matter and it's probably more realistic to just leave it alone.
But, yes, we're getting off topic. The Madoff example should probably just be ignored going forward, because it's a bad example no matter what point one is trying to argue. We can't get inside his head, much less know his inner most dealings, besides the fact that he was breaking the law. I break the law every day, whether it be jaywalking, going a couple miles over the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign, etc. People do that. They push the boundaries. Some use the ideology, "it isn't a crime if they don't get caught". Then there's the people willing to accept very high risk or even extreme high risk. Sure, Madoff hurt a lot of others in his dealings, but what was he supposed to do, have a high regard for others?
-
Do you mean "is the popular conception of rational self-interest equivalent to the Objectivist concept of selfishness?
Yes.
IMO RSI has to be redefined as much as selfish does.1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
1 : a concern for one's own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear>
hunterrose, how would you change these two definitions, which compose rational self interest?
Yes, but that is not a self evident fact. If anything, the (explain) tag should've been next to the Yes option, because the vast majority of people would require quite a lesson in Ayn Rand's philosophy before even beginning to grasp why you're saying that "rational self interest" is not a contradiction in terms.This remains to be seen.
Rand does qualify her selfishness. Sure, she starts out with the classic definition of selfish, rather than the modern definition. But she writes a whole book about it. I don't know how you can say that she didn't brand the word, selfish, her own way. She had a lot to say about selfishness.And, as an aside, there is no such thing as Objectivist selfishness. The word selfishness has been around long before Ayn Rand named her philosophy, and she did not change the meaning of the word. By saying Objectivist selfishness, you're falsely implying that she did, and selfishness in fact means something else than what she meant by it. That's very misleading to people who are not as familiar with her work as OO.net dwellers.
What if he never got caught? Was it the results which define the act, or the intention?There is only one kind of selfishness. Either you are behaving with your interests in mind or you're not. Some people would call Bernie Madoff selfish, but of course, his Ponzie scheme was NOT in his best interest, as evidenced by the fact that he ruined his life.
Standard dictionary for RSI. Rand's lexicon for selfishness.How are you defining your concepts? You can not discuss a concept in concrete terms if you can not define the concept itself.
Objectivism and circumcision?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Does Objectivism advocate government coerced "education"? I don't advocate what you are suggesting either.
I don't think anything magically happens at 18 (or any other age) which suddenly means one has an ability one didn't have one instant previous. Every individual is different, but there has to be a better measurement than age to identify a human's ability to make decisions.The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.
Violence means abuse, abuse means a corrupt custom. Corrupt means to change from good to bad morals. In a previous passage above, I believe I have shown the morality of circumcision in Ayn Rand's own words.
Also, your argument that state protections from circumcision is making a child a ward of the state is plain hyperbole.
More hyperbole. Where are you getting a child to being raised by "the collective"?There's a lot of things people could do to kids which would still allow them to be "perfectly fine adults", by your definition. It doesn't justify these behaviors that one might imagine. Why are we willing to settle for low bar of "perfectly fine" anyway. Is Objectivism about exceptionalism or "good enough"?
I want to repeat, I'm talking about protection. I'm not talking about social engineering or what's for the greater good crap. Quit spinning this raised by the collective spit. I have no idea how you get that from one's basic protection.
----Second post-----
I said "since prehistory". History has been recorded since (after) prehistory, by definition.
Show me the people with missing earlobes, etc that are dysfunctional. Again, throw the burden of proof on me while rejecting it yourself. You're such a hypocrite, not this one time, but over and over. Fix yourself before you try to fix me.
But, I guess you win. I'm tired of talking to you. Have fun debating yourself.