Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2046

Regulars
  • Posts

    2356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    84

2046 last won the day on September 20

2046 had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

9203 profile views

2046's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

270

Reputation

  1. Actual and potential are reflexive terms. Something is not absolutely actual or potential, but in regards to something else. Example: the acorn is actually an acorn, but potentially an oak tree. The oak tree is actually a tree but potentially a rotting log. In a similar way, a bullet just leaving the barrel could be potentially hitting its target, while at the same time an actual initiation of physical force. A threat could be potentially damaging your car, but an actual initiation of physical force. I know that's not a complete answer to your question but it's a start.
  2. That's not at all how the word risk or how statistical expectation values are used. If you take a Methods 100 level class, here is one way you'll learn to use the word risk: risk₁ - the statistical expectation value of an unwanted event which may or may not occur With this, you could use something like the average number of deaths from the last 10 years is the risk of some potential event. You see how you can't assign to a state that had already occurred an expectation value because you are no longer talking about something that may or may not occur. But just in general, ordinary language, the word "risk" means several different concepts. One is something like: risk₂ - an unwanted event which may or may not occur Example: “Lung cancer is one of the major risks that affect smokers.” Or something like: risk₃ - the cause of an unwanted event which may or may not occur Example: “Smoking is by far the most important health risk in industrialized countries.” Or probably the closest ordinary usage to the statistical usage: risk₄ - the probability of an unwanted event which may or may not occur Example: “The risk that a smoker’s life is shortened by a smoking-related disease is about 50%.” Problem: none of these tell me precisely what an initiation of physical force is, or what would qualify as an initiation of physical force. So if someone were to say something like "risk is physical force" or "identifiable increases in risk must be restrained with physical force" or something along those lines, you can safely disregard this person as a source of knowledge on the issue. This attempt at tying individual rights to risk, rather than initiation of physical force, will cast such a wide net that nearly all human activity would be restrained or prohibited. Almost everything a person does imposes some risks on others. Just by walking down the hallway at work for example, I impose the risk of spreading cold or flu. The prohibition or penalization of some risk would also itself impose other risks, and introduce a large amount of insecurity into human life, as Nozick pointed out, that having an indefeasible right not to be risk-exposed would be self defeating.
  3. Sounds like an actual Sounds like a potential On the first, it may be helpful to shift your focus from starting off already knowing what qualifies as an act vs potency (since that is the very question at hand) and the temporal element which is secondary to an existing actuality, to what you know about how it will imminently reach some state, and whether those factors are actual or not. Of course you cannot know that without individualized determination. In the case of the vaccine mandates, one does not only invade someone's body against their will before an actual initiation of force has occurred (rather only on a potential future possibility of some unwanted effect), but also without the knowledge of the attribution of any specific immanent harm from any specific individual. And they are quite often explicit about this and think it's a good thing (eg., calling it a collective action problem.)
  4. To confuse risk of physical force with initiation of physical force is to confuse a potential with an actual. The whole mandatory vaccination position depends on a Parmenidean worldview in which all that exists is fully actual, combined with disregarding the need to obtain sufficient information to blame any one person for anything. It is the same fallacy employed by advocates of anti-immigration, gun control, and environmentalism. Thank you for helping to make that connection.
  5. Hence having human civilization should be restrained, by this logic. The counter argument to this is simply: Life is inherently an identifiable increase in risk, so that is not the standard for restraint-application.
  6. You just made human civilization impossible. I don't think you can make this analogy work: the question is about what the law ought to be and why, not what it is.
  7. "I better not leave my house because some stranger unknown to me may not know if I'm a risk" is literally what they think and how they expect you to live your life. They are often enraged when encountering someone who doesn't. The proper response is telling them "I simply no longer care if I or anyone else gets covid."
  8. No I'm just saying a lot of your posts talking about like "ramblings of charlatans and lunatics" and so forth, who aren't fit to be reasoned with, is or was precisely a matter of debate between Hume and Reid with regard to what Reid called the principles of common sense. You can't debate with everyone all the time, nor is it to be considered of value unqualifiedly. So the matter of what is the validation or justification or a proof of something versus what can be argued brings in the different roles of argument and ridicule. Some things have a function such that argument befits it. Some things have a function such that ridicule is more useful.
  9. I've heard some people say, more than a few times, that the reason they don't believe in objectivity or that an external world exists is "because of quantum physics." But, as far as I can tell, this rests on some kind of confusion. This doesn't sound like anything I've seen about quantum physics. But I think you have to go back to when the quantum revolution first dropped. Everybody was committed to a kind of implicit or explicit materialism in which the word was composed of these microphysical particles in which everything is deterministic and it's all bottom-up causality and so forth. So the quantum revolution hit and people were like oh it's not really like that at all, these things are not deterministic, these little objects don't have determinate positions, like wow, I guess there's no reality there at all then. But you can see that that doesn't really follow, that is resulting from a sort of frustrated materialist ambition. A lot of the anti-realist stuff isn't even consistent or methodical anti-realist. Very few people think anything like that. But what it is is misplaced realistic goals with a sort of implicit anti-realist premises that results in people getting tripped up.
  10. Have you considered doing it on Clubhouse?
×
×
  • Create New...