Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Posts

    6727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    142

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. But the Russian Federation deserves a bigger fuck than the other 2 combined.
  2. How stupid do you have to be to talk against propaganda of all kinds, but then literally promote propaganda? It would be like you unironically posting CNN links. Could you post some evidence then? Nevermind, it doesn't matter, q-leivers can't be reasoned with, because any such person is trapped inside a cult. Not figuratively, I mean a literal cult. Share some. You should know that "look it up" doesn't work, Google searches are tailored towards individuals, so we will literally get different information. As much as I get combative with you, I trust you to provide something better. JL certainly won't. I can't get into Donbas, I didn't research it extensively, and like most countries involved with geopolitical things, there is probably a prior act of aggression by Russia, then back and forth until the beginning of Russian history. RT is about as helpful as Chinese media talking about Tiananmen Square. As in, not at all, and would as a matter of routine deny any negative implication as either nonexistent or as actually an act of self-defense.
  3. People repeatedly ask you for information, you don't provide information, but report what it says. We can never become informed because you will not provide the information, and when people ask you for the information, you accuse them of evasion or not being engaged or something to the effect of being unwilling to understand.
  4. He has never shown the slightest amount of honesty. There isn't anyone to liberate (if you have evidence, show something besides RT, since state run media organizations are the least reliable type of journalism), Ukraine isn't Nazified (if you look, you could find some Nazis, but you could do that in any military, US included, meaning that there is no meaningful political or military presence). Of course you saw that I agree that both sides are not angels, but compared to Russia, the Ukraine is an angel. I just get sick of the stupidity from you, JL, tad, and other random new people that stop around. Mostly just asking questions, putting forth ideas of things that are to be questioned by governments, but then stopping short of any meaningful analysis. It's like, I get it, you are giving an edgy take, but at least provide some good sources. I don't mind a layperson's discussion of geopolitics and all that, but speaking about geopolitics as if you want to explain what Russia's motivations are and suggest we should be more sympathetic, that's a bit deluded. To whose interests are you speaking here? For South Africa, sure, it probably doesn't matter, but I don't think anyone is really interested in South Africa's position in geopolitics anyway. It's boring. I imagine you want to talk about the interests of the US, in which case understanding the motivations of Russia only matters for asking how that can be used to damage Russia's geopolitical position. Or perhaps you could give an argument that Russia could be very useful for US interests. Here's an edgy take: for the geopolitical interests of the US, every country should be used as a pawn. The geopolitical discussion is interesting. But talking about topics like a Nazified Ukraine or Russia liberating some repressed Russians, that's just trivial and pretty meaningless for figuring out how to respond to the invasion of the Ukraine. Especially since those topics are highly speculative.
  5. Seriously, you are a true believer in Q, and your Savior never showed up, after which you abandoned posting for a very long time. I don't think you know what evasion is, or even epistemological principles. You haven't even mentioned the fact that people don't like, and when Alex requested more details about the fact that you claim, you didn't bother to post evidence or mention anything about these alleged eyewitnesses and the veracity of their testimony. I mean, I guess you haven't read enough of his posts.
  6. It looks like you have posed some questions, then provided preliminary answers, and others including me have responded to those questions. But I don't think the discussion progressed from there, with you speaking further as if the answers were arbitrary (as in based on nothing but assertions), and you were committing fallacies like equivocation, and throwing around red herrings. Then you claim things like reading Rand for over 50 years, despite making some very common mistakes for people who have only read very little by her except a few essays. So it doesn't look like you are trying very hard. I mean, it isn't a general philosophy forum, the intent is to learn a particular philosophy. Of course you have no obligation to explore everything, but you are trying to explore a hard subject without very much focus.
  7. All the above from this sentence sounds good to me. Although my opinion is that the Ukraine is lost, it doesn't matter anymore. At this point it's a waste of money.
  8. You don't need to be at war with someone for them to be your enemy. I told you some of the reasons I think Russia is an enemy, but I didn't mention anything why I think those matter to US interests. I'm not sure if you think I'm saying that the US should get involved, I'm not. I'm saying that whenever the interests of Russia are harmed these days, that's a good thing. I don't really care enough about RT to say that it needs to be a banned, but it sounds like a potentially reasonable thing to do. It doesn't bother me.
  9. Are you trying to say that Russia is the good guys, and Ukraine is the bad guys? Or are you saying something more like the Ukrainian government is not full of angels? I mean, I know that there are people who think that there is literally nothing wrong with the Ukrainian government and treat Russia as the USSR. That is overly simplistic. Every war since and including Vietnam has pretty much been both sides being in the wrong to some degree. But it's pretty straightforward to understand that the Russian government is filled with bad actors. Putin especially. I don't mean recently, I mean all the way back since 2000. Whatever the Ukrainian government did wrong, the Russian government has usually done worse, asserting some sort of imperialistic authority, completely pragmatic, led by one man for over 20 years who has no particular problem with assassination and murder of people in countries that are allied with the US. Leaving aside anything about the Ukraine, anything that hurts the Russian government more seems like the best option. eh, it isn't without reason to ban a state run media organization if that country is an enemy.
  10. ...you do know that RT is state-controlled, right? Yes, there is western propaganda, but you seem to be saying that there is not also Russian propaganda. State-controlled news is as close to propaganda as you can get. So yes, quite literally, everything on RT is Putin's propaganda. Always take with a massive grain of salt.
  11. But very few people claim that they have rights. You are equivocating again: rights as respect, versus rights as a rich legal concept pertaining to the needs of individuals. What things? The phrase in that way suggests you don't know what she meant anyway. Objectivity is a method as I said, if you mean that she was mistaken at times that she was being objective, that's fine. But I don't think you meant that, what you said is more like "things are not absolutely and permanently true in every context about far more things than she thought" which is pretty far off the mark. I actually don't know what you mean by subjectivity. I was going to say more, but then I realized, if someone wants to lie and say that they have read Rand over the course of 50 years, they probably aren't trying to argue in good faith. I don't care if you agree ultimately, but the people you're arguing with underlying premises that you claim to understand.
  12. You might not intend it, but you are equivocating. 1) I perceive the tree. 2) I perceive that the tree is an evergreen. 1 is sensory perception, while 2 is a cognitive identification. 1 refers to things that you see, 2 refers to things like memories and recalling concepts. You can use both versions of 'perception', but they refer to different things. The intent of this is to show you that perception implies being conscious, that's all. Consciousness is sufficient for something to be alive, but lacking consciousness does not necessarily mean that something is not alive. Consciousness with a capacity for conceptual cognition does imply having rights, though. You can properly say that a fetus is alive, yet since it does not have the capacity of perception, it couldn't be conscious, let alone possess a conceptual consciousness. Keep in mind that the primary point should be that of a human life begins at birth, that the process of living doesn't begin until birth, even if in some other way the fetus is alive and functioning. I don't know what you mean that I think that perception has to be cognitive in nature, I'm saying that cognition itself is not part of perception, that is, the process of perception is not the same broad process as cognition. You presume a lot to say that the fetus is uncomfortable and changes position for that reason. I actually didn't say that a fetus can't perceive. My dispute was your reasoning about nonconscious perception: if there is no such thing as nonconscious perception, your argument fails at this angle. A fetus is a different kind of thing than a developing baby. Sperm is even a different kind of thing from a fetus, and from a developing baby. All of these things have human DNA. Birth itself is pretty demonstrable and specific, that's when personhood is introduced. But you already know that's my conclusion, the only thing I really need to demonstrate is that a fetus is a different kind of thing than a baby. Not "another stage of development". Yes, so I realize now that 'habitual' wasn't a good word choice. I should've said something like 'in a somewhat automatic way'. I was pointing out that access to some cognitive processes or some physiological processes can be accessed with training. This does not demonstrate that any of these processes are perceptual, were perceptual, or will be perceptual. I don't know what you mean that a human being in a vegetative state can feel pain without perceptual content. Pain is perceptual content. Anyway, this is relevant because if something has conceptual consciousness, it has perceptual consciousness, and if it has perceptual consciousness, it has perceptual content. If something does not have perceptual content at all to any degree, it can't be perceptually conscious, and therefore cannot be conceptually consciousness. Additionally, since we know that people in a vegetative state have been conceptual creatures in the past, even if they don't fully qualify as conceptually consciousness, they are alive and conscious, perceiving the world around them. We know that these people perceive because they react to the world around them. If you found someone that didn't even react, I would argue that they are not conscious one bit, and should count as dead. If you studied her that long, I'm surprised that you don't know what she means by objectivity. Fine that you don't agree, but you didn't even get her position correct. I don't know what you mean though by Rand being too optimistic about objectivity that exists. To her, objectivity is a method, you say that a concept or idea is objective, in the sense that the concept refers to something in reality or the proper method has been used to develop the concept or idea. Twisted notion, as in bizarre and unfounded notion. I have no idea how you interpret that as suggesting she believed that two kinds of objectivity really exist, and that one is "bad". Clearly you read enough to know that Rand made arguments why her notion was correct and proper. She never did argue that there is some kind of objective truth outside the ability to perceive existed. Since after 50 years of reading Rand you still do not understand this... you certainly are not qualified to say much of anything about Rand. Again, I don't care that you disagree, I'm saying you got her position wrong.
  13. I was mostly poking fun in an ironic tone that I think most people who deeply care about proclaiming themselves to be Objectivists are the biggest complainers and nitpickers in my experience. The label doesn't matter much to me, but those people get caught up in criticizing the small things and saying little praise about the big and good things.
  14. If you are stopping there, then all you are doing is asking questions, without trying to answer them. Yes, perhaps it could make your head spin, but hard subjects require focus.
  15. I don't have any particular issue with you saying nonconscious as far as this discussion, but those things weren't really be a type of perception would they? Perception is something with a sensory organ or some act that allows you to grasp reality either internal to your body or external to your body. But dreams, intuition, and so on, or forms of mental processes, but not perceptual mental processes. Sure, they may be very perceptual-like, but that doesn't make those processes perceptual in nature. They are in some way cognitive. They might refer to something perceptual, but they are not themselves perceptual. Even if everything you have ever experienced is etched somewhere into your mind, that doesn't say anything about the memory of those experiences being perceptual. I think you're right that just about everything we have experienced is etched into our minds, and that much of this information is potentially accessible to direct thinking, although much of it probably occurs in the untrained mind in a habitual way. For what it's worth, Rand would agree, which you would find in Romantic Manifesto. But what does that even say about nonconscious perception? With all that considered, it seems that the subconscious or nonconscious mechanisms cannot function without some prior perceptual content. You might characterize dreams as a kind of indirect perception, but without some direct perception, that indirect perception would not have any content. So without having at a minimum direct perceptual experiences, dreams and everything else you mentioned as nonconscious perception just would not function. You say that your perspective is more fundamental and organic, but I would say it is far more organic to say that being alive and even thinking requires perception, yet there is no example of a living thing that doesn't perceive. Even people in vegetative states perceive. As for your last paragraph, I think you misunderstand or have not read enough about what Rand believes about objectivity. It doesn't mean without exception, or infallible, or absolute truth, or provable necessarily; and what she says about forming concepts objectively doesn't exclude past experiences or beliefs (although I don't quite know what you mean by belief in this context). You might say that if she believed what I said, then she doesn't know what objectivity is or she accepts the subjectivity of mankind while at the same time condemning subjectivity. The important thing to understand is that she conceives of objectivity as obeying and following the nature of the human mind, while objectivity that is beyond or transcends the human mind is a twisted notion.
  16. What point are you trying to make? Why are you spending time on stupid and uninformed people? I just find it curious when people opt for self-mutilation rather than something interesting and productive even in their own eyes.
  17. Discuss, and then what? The issue I think is more like a lack of substantive speakers. But another issue is a lack of support of anyone, then complaining and nitpicking about people saying things in ways they don't like. I'm not saying you, just casual observations of other self-proclaimed Oists.
  18. I thought about that point later on after I said it. Reflecting back on it, I should have said that the rhetoric in that case wasn't intended to persuade people who were antiabortion to become pro-abortion, but it was persuasion towards a particular type of emotional reaction in line with those who are pro-abortion. I don't see what point you're trying to make with the quote there though. I'm not even saying that some anti-abortion people are disagreeing for dishonest reasons, I'm saying that some of those people are pathetically stupid and aren't worth the time, but they are worth disdain when they are politically active. I'm saying this in terms of the politics of abortion, not about disagreements in general.
  19. 1) what is an example of nonconscious perception? 2) At least by the way Rand defines it, perception is not the interpretation of sensory input. Perception is a presentation of reality in some form, and once presented, can be interpreted. Interpretation is something cognitive, but cognitive is not synonymous with conscious. Given that perception is in some form, it implies consciousness, or else it would be formless; if you perceive in a form, you are aware that there is a form of perception. This is in contrast to something like a motion detector, which is not conscious because there is no form to that detection of motion in a perceptual or qualitative way.
  20. He takes a very Hume-ean approach here, which sometimes could look like Kantianism at first blush. So there are sensations, sure, but the very way in which we perceive the world is subjective or at least nonobjective. I don't know all the details here, but Kant answered or fixed what he saw as problems with Hume's view, not a completely new answer starting from scratch. Hume probably would say something about most of our thinking being nonobjective, with mere sensations underneath. And so of course the only completely objectively real things are particles and space, as EF said. Modernize that a bit, and we get some reductionism in there, where the mind is ultimately just particles, nothing else, the rest is fantasy or something of no particular causal nature. Note the paragraph with all his 'somehow's, which more or less makes fun of seeking causal explanations of extremely complex systems or phenomena. I doubt he is going full Hume here, but as far as things like evolution and the mind, he seems to be suggesting that it is foolish to even claim that we have found a causal and objective explanation of any of these things - unless that explanation involves fundamental particles and things like that. All we have are actually just ad hoc explanations, at best narratives that we tell ourselves.
  21. I didn't post that link because I was treating it as an argument, but because the rhetorical flair captures how I feel about the matter. Clearly it wasn't meant to be persuasive, so I was posting it to show anyone who might be interested in rhetoric not necessarily aimed at persuading. Great, if that's what we are talking about, I think that's worth discussion. But the subject here is a right to choose to have an abortion even in the first trimester, not abortion restrictions. That's the kind of antiabortion that I'm describing as monstrous and a twisted definition of life.
  22. It isn't clear what you mean by data, since the only thing meant by sense data here is whatever it is that your senses provide. Sense data does not mean percept. But the data are created? This is very vague, because you could mean something like percepts are formed by mental processes, or you might mean something like the mind invents something which is then mixed with the sensation. You speak with the same imprecision as the same statements you are criticizing. No one said that a percept exists out there, I already explained that to you. Science has not established what you said, what you said is simplification of science. Much of what is it is in some way contested, the only thing established being very broad statements which are amenable to many different underlying philosophical viewpoints. I'm not sure if that is an exact quote, but the idea is that philosophy is fundamental. You seem to be espousing scientism, which plenty of philosophers find to be naïve. If you think we are all fundamentalists here, I don't know why you bother.
  23. I don't know why you're wasting any time here, you seem more annoyed than anything. Whatever your intention, you'll get more mileage elsewhere.
  24. Percepts themselves are not out there in the world, and no one did claim that percepts are something placed from the outside into your brain. The Oist is really that our percepts are some kind of presentation of the world as it is, and that our minds are not constructing reality itself as we see it. Sometimes experimental psychology goes heavy on representationalism, but to say that percepts exist in the mind is trivial. Anyway, you are a reductionist, so I know saying that won't really change your mind about much.
×
×
  • Create New...