Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2046

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    68

2046 last won the day on June 9

2046 had the most liked content!

About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8385 profile views
  1. So, garbage. Shame. This project possibly could have been extremely beneficial if some decent left-wing analytic philosophers attempted it.
  2. Not a promising abstract.
  3. The answer to some of these questions is obvious, and others are for the most part going to be "it depends." Although I don't think saying "it belongs to the philosophy of law" is "dismissal," I think that is the correct answer. And the reason why it's not a dismissal is because it recognizes the order of general principles to practical application, and it recognizes the role of institutions in developing law through confronting particular situations of conflict where conduct must be adjusted in a political community. But I also think it's a perfectly fine question to then ask "but how does a jurist then figure this out?" Concepts, you gotta remember, in Ayn Rand's view, and I think correctly, are not what she calls intrinsic. She does think they are "open-ended" and function differently in different contexts, which partially depend on our purposes at any given time in employing them. It's a fallacy to think that either there is some ready-made metaphysical demarcation one can discover from the philosopher's armchair that will be sufficient to solve all these questions, or the concepts must be fluid and infinitely malleable. There is more than Platonic realism or nominalism. Don't forget that philosophy of law is also called jurisprudence, and prudence is the virtue of practical wisdom in Aristotelian philosophy. It's important that one not confuse the level of general principles with the particular and contingent judgments that must be made by the actors situated in a specific context. When we are doing moral and political philosophy, we are coming up with very wide generalizations like "capitalism is good," "people have rights," and "don't initiate force." One cannot just meditate on "initiation of force is evil" and then plug in "10 ft wall, drone, peeping" etc., and then out comes a judgment "violates rights" or "doesn't violate rights." That may be a kind of Hobbesian calculation view of thought, but that's not how practical reason works. That Salmieri exchange with Zwolinski is good because it explains the role that Rand's concept of force plays as a holistic approach both horizontally and vertically related to other concepts, and that one has to keep that relationship when applying it. So if we take "health is a value" for example. How do we apply this to our lives? Beyond noting that "life is the standard of value" and moving to generic goods like "health is a value," there is very little in the way of direct practical advice on at the concrete level of real human conduct. Do I work out at 7 am? 4 pm? After breakfast? Do I jog? What if I have shin splints? What about strength training? Should I join a gym? Is yoga good? Etc. You can see that there is no support for reaching any conclusions just sitting in the armchair and trying to deduce a clearly demarcated criterion for answering from the premise "health is a good" alone. Once you've induced a general concept like "health is a good" from paradigmatic concrete examples, you then have a good basis on which to go back to the concrete and identify further, more marginal and hard cases, and subsume them under the generalization, keeping the context of the original classification. The same way, if the jurist keeps in mind what the purpose for the concept of rights originally was, he doesn't have to have universalistic and intrinsically demarcated criterion for everything, he has to have some reason to subsume a new concrete under the general class by tying the purpose to be achieved. And that requires recognizing that something is, in fact, an example of the general principles by identifying similarities and differences, and by relating and adjusting your identifications to what you already know.
  4. You... do know... "Personality representing" ≠ origin of the brand name, right? Nor does a "celebrity personality representing" = what's being represented. That's just... not how representations work. The character is, in fact, depicting a slave woman, as sung by minstrel comedy. "Old Aunt Jemima" is an American song composed by African American comedian, songwriter and minstrel show performer Billy Kersands (c. 1842–1915). The song became the inspiration for the Aunt Jemima brand of pancakes, as well as several characters in film, television and on radio named "Aunt Jemima". Often, "Old Aunt Jemima" would be sung while a man in drag, playing the part of Aunt Jemima, performed on stage. It was not uncommon for the Aunt Jemima character to be played by a white man in blackface.[2][3] Other minstrels incorporated Aunt Jemima into their acts, so Aunt Jemima became a common figure in minstrelsy. Other songs about Aunt Jemima were composed, such as "Aunt Jemima Song" and "Aunt Jemima's Picnic Day".[2] The monkey dressed in soldier clothes, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! Went out in the woods for to drill some crows, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! The jay bird hung on the swinging limb, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! I up with a stone and hit him on the shin, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! Oh, Carline, oh, Carline, Can't you dance the bee line, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! The bullfrog married the tadpole's sister, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! He smacked his lips and then he kissed her, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! She says if you love me as I love you, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! No knife can cut our love in two, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! Oh, Carline, oh, Carline, Can't you dance the bee line, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh![2][3] My old missus promise me, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! When she died she-d set me free, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! She lived so long her head got bald, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! She swore she would not die at all, Old Aunt Jemima, oh! oh! oh! "Oh!oh!oh!"[2] Sterling Stuckey maintains that Kersands did not write all of these lyrics, but adapted many of them from "slave songs" (such as field hollers and work songs).[2]
  5. I go to Ford to purchase a new car. I buy a car with all the latest features, but I get home and the car is missing some features. I go back to the Ford dealer and summoning my best Karen, I ask to speak to the manager. I bought the package with all these features, but my car doesn't have these features, I say. Ah, but you bought the car from StrictlyLogical and Merjet. They were your salesmen. And they're not here. They're gone. Sorry, you're out of luck. And they won't be in tomorrow, or the next day. In fact, they're saying home and we're shielding them. And you can't get reimbursed from Ford because, see, you only have the right to get reimbursement from those who sold you the car. No such entity "Ford" sold you the car, see? SL and MJ sold you the car. And you will never see them again. Now begone! If I were to do some cliche Randian analysis, beyond just peppering every other sentence with boilerplate jargon like "objective" this and "metaphysical" that, would probably conclude that this is the "concrete-bound" mentality. I would probably conclude that it is the refusal to abstract. And the reason for that is because organisations and institutions are groups of people, and these various people are representatives of the organization. And they know that, they're just being an insufferable pedantic.
  6. It wasn't that guys knee on his neck. See it was underlying conditions combined with that guys knee on his neck. Oh okay. In before all the armchair defensive tactics experts come to ackshually.exe
  7. If you take a basic economics class, you'll learn about arbitrage. People who take advantage of price differences add value in two ways: (a) smoothing out supply differences between geographical areas, and (b) ensuring supply is available at a different time. Both a and b prevent shortages and sharp price fluctuations. People who look at this and simply conclude "he's not adding value" are considering value from a physical labor perspective, incapable of considering value as an abstract relationship. Don't be a Marxist simp. The guy did nothing wrong.
  8. Holy shit he ran the IQ version of the Navy seal copypasta script
  9. That's weird, cause see here I thought what mattered was whether or not an argument was valid and had true premises, not whether the person or website presenting a fact or argument was a *gasp* lEfTiSt or not. Then again, conservatives are garbage and bad at reason, I guess it's no surprise.
  10. "The fact that you don't agree with me, a stranger on the internet, telling you what your thoughts and expectations are just proves how triggered you are"
  11. Who is this "we" here? I love when someone who doesn't know me "we's" me into whatever their incorrect private thoughts are.
  12. Except for the tiny fact that the US wasn't, in fact, established by such a contract and no government ever has been. Right wingers in 2020: Social contract for taxes and welfare: out Social contract for banning the darkies: in
×
×
  • Create New...