Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

Eiuol last won the day on November 16 2019

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Partner
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

23893 profile views
  1. All (biological) organisms have genes. Genetic determinism and biological determinism are synonymous. Biologic actions (like digestion) are genetically determined. However, behaviors are not genetically determined. They are genetically influenced, but not determined. There are many more factors that determine what a behavior will be in addition to genes. Strictly speaking, you can say that reflexes are behaviors, but as for anything else, genes do not determine behavior. It's not that the biological is conflated with the genetic, but that some people have a really hard time understanding how people can be biologically determined in some ways, and have free will at the same time. Either they deny that people have free will, or they deny that people operate under the same rules as other animals. Or they just accept the contradiction. Do you have the source? I'm very curious to read this claim in context.
  2. I probably spoke too soon. I can think of some examples now.
  3. To the extent that laws of biological determinism are real, anything biological follows them. To the extent that laws of biological determinism are false, nothing at all follows them. But I don't think biological determinism is defensible anyway. It's the idea that genes have causal power in a direct way. I don't think anyone seriously believes that genes literally carry behavioral content. That's true of insects, that's true of humans.
  4. A free-will compatible approach would be to think about biologically-caused (for example, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) mental illness as something that influences the qualitative content of mental states but does not itself cause specific behavior. As an example, someone going through psychosis may hallucinate, but nothing about psychosis itself causes them to yell at the hallucination. I don't know if this qualifies as compatibilism though. I'm not aware of Rand discussing mental illness anywhere either.
  5. I'm not sure what you're talking about, there isn't anything parallel with Objectivism that I can even point out, only compatibility. His theory is about the development of consciousness, and a lot of what he writes entails that language expression is essential to understanding consciousness. It's compatible with any cognitive perspective on psychology. Most of the theory presented here is armchair reasoning, basically science fiction (it's scientific in that it uses some scientific facts, but uses imagination to propose a theory). That is, it's not a theory. Not to say that the facts are wrong, but the combination of facts come together as an idea focused on the gradual development of associative mechanisms eventually resulting in some more complex form of rationality. But it doesn't hold up really well, because you can't transition into complex forms on the level of dolphins and higher. Associative thinking has its value, it's just completely distinct from reasoned, creative thought. Jaynes from the outset, as I recall, really only focuses on the nature of consciousness. What it is like to have experiences and an inner voice. The gist is that he suggests that integrated brain lateralization (basically the way the human brain is split into two hemispheres) could be responsible for what we know as conscious experience and modes of thinking deliberately. More or less, up to about 3000 years ago, life kind of just "happened" and was mediated by an inner voice. Something vaguely similar to schizophrenia, but then imagine you didn't have the ability to think about your own thoughts. Consciousness as we know it developed as this divided mind became more integrated. Most of his theory is literary, and he acknowledges this. Mostly very peculiar observations of very old literature (and pretty much the only way we can get any evidence of psychology that long ago when writing was very new) I wouldn't even call it a theory necessarily. It's interesting though that it approaches consciousness and its development apart and distinct from the development of associative thinking.
  6. Eiuol

    Youth as a value

    You are mostly right about how to define value, but it doesn't necessarily entail or require "for survival". As far as the things you ought to value, they won't go against your survival, and may only benefit your life in a psychological sense. Youth as a whole is valuable to many people, and maintaining youth or going in that direction can be a very nice thing in terms of quality of life. You might not gain youth itself as some static thing you hold onto, and you can't keep it forever (because even psychologically speaking you won't be youthful forever because you will learn more about life). You still comes value the things that stands for, as a type of admiration for the good things out in life. You might find your own youth valuable because it maintains some antidote against pessimism. Plus, you can see it as a medical concern that can be dealt with like anything else. Of course, valuing youth can become a bad thing. For example, someone can explicitly hate who they have become and lose any self-esteem because they see themselves as worthless compared to who they once were. Some people develop body image issues if they see their body in this way. I've heard of people going as far as having frequent plastic surgery as if nothing about who they are now is any good; the only good things were when they were young probably.
  7. Yes, I am including you when I said most people. Yeah. I disagree with the example she gave about Nazi Germany, because I would argue that it was implemented by force. "It's only a matter of time" is a pretty empty thing to say, because entirely depends on how you respond. It says nothing about how threatening a particular socialist is. You are very authoritarian in your desired response to socialism, which is much the same as the authoritarian governments in South America in the recent past. By the way, you are confirming what I said when I said people vote for narratives. At the very least, you are showing that you don't vote for the person, you vote for the narrative. I'm saying that even Joe Rogan does this. I do this. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't.
  8. But that article was easy to understand. It makes very clear the difference between saying someone is a communist versus saying they are a socialist, right in the communism as a goal portion. That is correct. The revolutions you are thinking about are either communist or anarchist.
  9. Nothing any different than Wikipedia would suggest.
  10. I was talking in the past tense, I wouldn't vote for him anymore; so far this time around, I don't plan to vote for anyone.
  11. You are demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. I mean, you've constructed a fear of socialists, which is blown out of proportion, but nevertheless, it is silly to say that you aren't voting for some kind of narrative. Not really, mostly people just don't understand what socialism is, very often confusing it with communism and treating as the same. To say more about why I would have voted for him back then, it was because he offered some kind of narrative about power structure and could get people to question that more, especially with regard to social policy.
  12. What's your point? I already acknowledged that you (and therefore anyone else) may give character- based reasons to like a candidate. If you press on him more, he would say something about some kind of narrative, that Bernie fits into it better. I registered Democrat in order to vote for Bernie in the primary back in 2016 because while I thought he was a better person than Trump or Hillary, I thought the narrative he promoted and the people around him was most compatible with me than any other candidate. Contrary to what people may say, you know that political trends involve various narratives that people take on, and then select the people that fit into the narrative. Sometimes people vote on grounds of just the candidate and their character traits and not any wider political system of thought, but when that happens, the candidates don't last very long and don't have much power to do anything. That goes back to the main point: the Communists in the ranks of Bernie's campaign have no power to do anything concerning, nor are they part of the narrative of his campaign.
  13. I didn't think that the distinction I was making was too subtle for you, but I guess it was. People generally make decisions in the context of narratives that they believe to be true. Even if you were to say that a communist is factually wrong, it doesn't make a difference if the person listening in thought that you were factually wrong and the communist was factually correct. The communist must provide some narrative to accept as true or false in order to make some difference politically. If there is no narrative to grab onto, or no one is listening to the narrative, that means there is nothing anyone is using to judge that person's beliefs as true or false. The word narrative is not a pejorative here, and I am not using it to connote a fiction. If I asked you who you want to vote for and why, you probably will include some character traits of the person. But any research in anything but modern politics shows that the more dynamic convincing and skillful politicians make use of narratives. When has that ever happened?
  14. People vote for narratives, whether they are true or false doesn't matter here. I get what you're saying, but votes in the abstract don't mean anything because there are an infinite number of reasons to vote for someone besides strictly support. That you find some communists in the ranks of various political campaigns isn't particularly interesting or concerning. It would be interesting if somebody was listening to them.
  15. It's a pretty weak assault if they aren't even controlling the narrative.
×
×
  • Create New...