Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

nanite1018

Regulars
  • Content Count

    365
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by nanite1018

  1. I rather think we should have two words for "open-system" and "closed-system". The closed-system people advocate that Objectivists are people who agree with every philosophical position of Ayn Rand. What the "open-system" people advocate for, I think, is to view Objectivism not as the "philosophy of Ayn Rand"--meaning the philosophy in her head (or perhaps less restrictively the set of philosophical positions and arguments she wrote down/made public)-- and instead view it as "the school of philosophy inspired by Ayn Rand". I've often found it weird that people use "Objectivist" in the first
  2. Well, what you actually are wishing for, in that case, is to be a very wealthy individual in a prior age (for example the 1920s or 30s). The vast majority of lives in history have had essentially no glamour and prestige. Technological advance, for example the advent of the Internet, does not produce a culture dominated by stupidity or crudeness. Rather, the culture of the age may in part be shaped by these technologies, but it is always the people themselves who create this culture. If you have a society dominated by rational people, you will have a rational culture regardless of the technolog
  3. Well that gets me thinking. I currently agree with Childs' argument; it seemed plain that it was correct. Similarly, I thought the quote of Rothbard's in that thread was reasonable as well. My understanding of "objective" has always been the relationship between an individuals mind and reality--you are objective/meeting the requirements of objectivity if you are focused and rigorously applying reason and logic to all the data you get about reality from your senses. If you obey the proper rules of deduction and induction, you're objective. If not, you're not. My understanding was always that ot
  4. There is no such thing as an impersonal context of knowledge. All knowledge is held personally, as only individuals have minds and all knowledge ultimately lies in the minds of individuals. By making independent invention an affirmative defense, and having some well defined standard of proof for independent invention, one retains objectivity in the law (and a reasonable standard of proof would make any uncertainty introduced relatively small, since a simply patent search on Google Scholar will in all likelihood inform someone whether or not their idea has already been done, making truly indepe
  5. Well there's a few things. One is that given a total separation of economy and state, the economy would grow faster and be more stable than it is today--governments wouldn't constantly be mucking up the works with regulations and taxes, nor changing conditions arbitrarily with new regulations, taxes, or manipulation of interest rates for political purposes. As a result, the amount of wealth in the society would be increasing faster than today, making more resources available for less immediately productive purposes. The more capital there is to invest, the longer range can be the investment go
  6. I never denied the validity of intellectual property, nor did I deny the applicability of objectivity in defining inventions or ideas. I am disputing the claim that the origin of an invention, idea, or value has absolutely no relation to who should have a right to it. It is obvious that there are really independent inventors in the real world, yes? I think we can agree that there has indeed been at least one instance of truly independent invention in history. Clearly, then, at least some of the value from the invention is no longer the responsibility of the original inventor (at some point
  7. Just wanted to say that this is really good. If you haven't, I would check out the Paleo or Primal diet (just google it). I started out about where you were in February, 260 lbs, and without exercising really at all lost 40 pounds in ~4 months, and am now at about 205-210 (with a bit of exercise incorporated). I always thought I was going to be fat forever, but you don't have to. And it doesn't have to be a super-hard struggle either (I had no problem dropping the first 30 pounds or so, and while its gotten harder to keep losing weight, it isn't too bad). The most important point about all of
  8. I would like Obama to think about William Lloyd Garrison or Frederick Douglass. They're viewed as heroes today. Patrick Henry, another uncompromising hero. Heck, all our Founding Fathers were fairly radical. Hell, even the Roosevelts were uncompromising in their ideology (even if it was wrong), and both are considered heroes today. The compromisers are hardly ever remembered, or revered. Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, is now seen as a disgraced man, someone who helped to continue the existence of an evil institution in the name of peace and compromise.
  9. Each inventor has a monopoly on their idea, i.e. what they created. It just so happens that there are other people who have similar "products". This seems very similar to me as easily substituted products like butter and margarine, or different brands of paint or milk or salt. There isn't really much of a difference between them, which makes it difficult for any one business interest in the market to gain a significant share or affect the market as a whole in a major way (the old "perfect competition" case in neo-classical and Keynesian economics). Each person always has a right to charge what
  10. I agree. There is absolutely no justification for circumcision. It is a holdover from ancient times when it (might have) served some purpose. Now it's only justification is religious belief, which cannot possibly be accepted as a legitimate reason to mutilate a child's body, regardless of whether or not they can go on to lead a happy life afterwards, or whether "everybody's doing it".
  11. I understand it is intellectual property, my point is that if my idea didn't come from you in any way, then I can't be infringing on any conception of property (I can't take anything from you or infringe on anything you have unless I have some sort of connection to you). An idea originates in someone's mind. If I have an idea for an invention, and I didn't get it from someone else (or the creation of someone else, say a book or tv show or journal, what have you), then my idea is my own and I should have a right to the value that comes as a result of my idea. If someone else comes up with somet
  12. How is it relevant how easy it is to know, or what one "should" know? The question here is one of principle: Does one deserve to reap the rewards of one's work if one invents something independently of anyone else? Has such a person violated the rights of anyone else, and if so, how? You haven't addressed my argument that the original inventor no longer can claim to be the creator of all the value from the idea, as the independent inventor must now be held to be at least in part responsible for some of the value others get from the idea (after all, if the first inventor hadn't invented it,
  13. It was way back in post 41 by 2046 and responded to in post 42 by Grames. They used "relational value" (I browsed the whole thread before posting, just to at least attempt to make sure I wasn't repeating something someone else had already said). Basically, it was a question about what "create value" meant--creating a thing, an entity, or creating market value. Basically, it was a confusion over what was meant by "value", because it usually is used to mean exchange/relational value by most non-Objectivists in discussions of property. I knew it had already been addressed, so I put it in there as
  14. If you can have "first to invent", this means that you can prove you invented it before the other person. Why can't you use the same standards of proof, but not for "first to invent" but "independent inventor"? And my point is not that the burden of proof would be easy to achieve, but that in principle there is one and that there might be a case where we can conclude that someone did in fact invent something independently. And scientists have to keep meticulous records to be able to prove they did the research independently (as well as had priority), and do so on a regular basis (or they keep
  15. Let's say I have a carrot. It's worth 1 dollar at present, if I were to sell it at the going market price (this is the carrot's exchange value). Now let's say some reputable medical association comes out tomorrow and declares that carrots are poisonous and bad for your health, and that no one should consume carrots anymore. A few hours later, the market price for my carrot is now a penny. No one has used force, but the exchange value of my carrot has dropped by 99% in a day. More realistically, I own a stock and its price plummets on a bad earnings report. I have lost a lot of wealth (the exch
  16. My point is what does it matter if they were first? That was the whole matter I was addressing in my post. If someone discovers/invents it independently, then (as in science) they should get equal credit for having done so. They did the work, which is still the creation of a value. That's what I'm saying here. If the standard is "all independent inventors" that is perfectly objective as well (no less objective than "first to invent", certainly, because in such a system it is admitted that one can independently invent something after someone else has done the same and demonstrate that they did
  17. My only question doubt about IP is the barring of independent inventors/creators. People have a right to the values they create (i.e. entities themselves, not the exchange "value" of those entities--a system where one has rights to exchange values is impossible), and so of course if I build something I should own it, and even be able to get a patent on the design if I choose to (and I actually invented it). But what if someone else had already invented something, and I didn't know? Why shouldn't I be able to get a patent on it as well? After all, I can't be "stealing" from the other person, be
  18. Is the use of physical violence against another person a valid argumentative strategy? Are you making any truth claims while doing so? Exchanging propositions? No to all of the above. You are simply ignoring the other person's mind, and basically treating them as if they were an animal or a machine for you to command at your own will. To use force against another rational being is to reject the use of reason in one's dealings with them. If we are having a debate, and I say "All right, I know how we'll settle our disagreement: if you don't agree with me, I'm gonna shoot you with this Colt 45,"
  19. This problem has been addressed before in a few places on this forum, though not in the form of this free will theorem. The reason their principle does not apply to Bohmian mechanics (which is the realist, deterministic version of quantum mechanics) is that Bohmian mechanics is nonlocal. Their proof depends on the assumption of locality--that there is some, however high, maximum rate at which information can travel, i.e. that an event at point A can only effect events happening at point B after some finite but nonzero amount of time. Bohmian mechanics rejects this, instead positing fundamental
  20. I think you misinterpreted the statement that juror made. She was saying that she believes that Casey Anthony is guilty, but that there wasn't enough evidence to be able to render a guilty verdict. And apparently, that is the case for everyone on the jury. They all think she is guilty. So does basically everyone in the country. There is no reasonable explanation for her behavior except that she killed her daughter. That may not be enough evidence to convict her of murder, but that certainly is enough for me and most other people to view her as a murderer and want nothing whatsoever to do with
  21. Actually, I don't know if I like this notion of "apodicticity" as opposed to analytic. I think, actually, apodictic is worse, in its connotations. Apodictic, it seems from my researches, is meant to be a statement about the certainty of the statement, and in particular whether it is "necessary" or "contingent". My revised notion, as described above, of "apodicticity" and "assertoricity" seem more in line with "analytic" and "synthetic". In this sense, an analytic statement would be a statement which deals solely with the specified measurements of a concept, and a synthetic statement would deal
  22. I have hit upon the solution to my earlier question. When I say "this field is extended in space", this is apodictic not because the particular in question (this field) is extended in space, but rather because the concept of which I am declaring it a unit (this field, which is a unit of the concept "field") has as one of its characteristics that it is extended in space. The statement "this field has more apples than oranges" is assertoric not because I do not yet know whether the statement is true or false, but because the concept of which this particular is a unit ("field") says nothing whats
  23. 2046, I think you've hit on something there. It has always seemed obvious to me that there is something to the notion of analytic/synthetic statements (and, for that matter, "a priori"/"a posteriori"). If I understand your proposal correctly, it goes something like this: We form concepts through measurement omission. Using the characteristics of the concept which are not omitted in the formation of a concept, we can make certain statements immediately. For example, "bachelor" specifies "unmarried" and "man", but doesn't talk about favorite color or height, etc. And so one can, immediately,
  24. I'll chime in, since I'm reading a number of his books right now. While he uses Kantian terminology, he generally seems to believe that his a priori categories are both a structure of the human mind and a feature of the world. Our categories reflect the nature of reality. He gives an evolutionary explanation for this, basically saying that entities whose minds did not conform to the structure of reality died out, and we are the entities who succeeded by having categories that match reality. Mises wasn't an impositionist Kantian along the lines of the German Idealists. He (and Hans-Hermann Hopp
  25. I almost think that what standard one should have for sex might need to be figured out "on the fly" so to speak -- as one has romantic relationships and gains some experience. I have very little experience with romance and sex. I'm a virgin, and haven't been on a date in nearly 3 years -- I'm 20 years old and entering my fourth and final year of college this fall (before grad school that is). When I try to think about how well I would need to know someone in order to be comfortable having sex, how long I would need to know them, how "good" or high a value they need to be, etc. I feel like I
×
×
  • Create New...