Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2046

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

2046 last won the day on March 20

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

8294 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. Holy shit he ran the IQ version of the Navy seal copypasta script
  5. 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.
  6. "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"
  7. Who is this "we" here? I love when someone who doesn't know me "we's" me into whatever their incorrect private thoughts are.
  8. 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
  9. Well, yes. Partly because the foregoing wasn't an argument. It's a distinction. One that is commonly made (eg,. in JS Mill) to understand what "nature" means, as opposed to "artificial" or man-made. But that doesn't tell us anything about whether everything occurs applies to human agents in the same exact way or not, and what relevant sense this is supposed to mean, or what causal capacities we do actually have are.
  10. if (argument.understand == false) ; system.out.Print ("REEEEEE") ; Run sys.exe [ lexicon.cite ("www.aynrandlexicon.com) ] ;
  11. Could also be "The Fascist New Frontier," originally planned as a standalone book, but rejected by the publisher, later delivered as a talk and published in the Ayn Rand Column: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-fascist-new-frontier/ Also see p. 359ff in the Wiley-Blackwell Companion for analysis from Lewis and Salmieri.
  12. Have you talked to a "muh IQ and culture" conservative?
  13. Well yeah, we'd all love to read a scholarly essay from Rand on a lot of things, but that is not going to be available to you. Compatibilism could look something like Rand's position in the following way: what most people mean by "determinism" (in the ordinarily held belief set "determinism is true") is just that "things have causes." They don't happen randomly, or magically. They "obey laws" or act orderly. In that sense, free will is something compatible with "determinism construed as things having causes." Generally, at the level this concern is presented, it is when the person has reached a certain level of reflection about nature and causality and it's relation to choice. But you're right that compatibilist views have, historically, rested on shifting the meaning of "free" to modal notions about our power or ability to bring things about, and the absence of restraints on those powers. Additionally the classical compatibilists tended to conceptualize "determinism" in a stricter way than I just did above, but in the sense of "necessary due to things that are not up to us." In that sense, Rand's position has nothing in common with compatibilism. Rand's position seems to entail not merely that we faced no constraints on our power or ability to do otherwise if we desired, but that we have an agent-causal power to direct our consciousness that is ontologically irreducible to event-causation alone (her "focus theory.") But if you're looking for some in depth informational resource: there isn't any. Rand's philosophy is underdeveloped on this point.
  14. But there is an important incongruence between the model of reason as calculation (as in, say, Hobbes) and other theories of mental activity. Nobody actually thinks like that. We don't go "I value this person n¹ units, and that thing n² units, therefore I will do x." That attributes a kind of incommensurable quantification of persons, things, actions (what unit would even be measured here?), and attributes to people a kind of calculative reasoning people don't normally perform in day to day activities. Sometimes we do calculate things, but part of what makes being a sociopath deficient in some way is that they are unable to see things in non-binary terms.
×
×
  • Create New...