Dante
-
Posts
1361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Posts posted by Dante
-
-
"The Universe" used to be the Earth. Then it used to be solar system. And then it was the galaxy. We then found that there are more galaxies than just our own. Yet we can arbitrarily state that "everything that exists" can not include anything like a multiverse because....?
I would not state that. Everything that exists, exists, and thus is part of the universe. The concept of different "bubbles" of space and time is what seems to me to be what the idea of a multiverse is. I would certainly argue that there is no evidence and quite possibly can be no evidence of such objects, but if they existed, they would by definition be a part of the universe.
Our knowledge of what exists has indeed grown, but the idea of our knowledge of stuff extending beyond that which exists is nonsense.
-
No, that isn't what I am doing. I said that's what it looks like phibetakappa is doing. DavidOdden seems to be saying the same thing:
(Emphasis added)
Such a something cannot exist? By whose authority? The axiom's?
The definition of "universe" as "everything that exists."
-
Irrational expectations/demands are caused by misformed conceptions of reality. The correct conception of the reality of the internet is that it exists as an information replicator and everything on it is shared with or without your permission... you have no control over it. Any expectation that exists based on a misformed concept of the reality of the internet is dismissable as irrational because only rational expections can come from valid conceptions of reality.
This would seem to justify any act of theft that would be committed by the majority of people encountering the situation. Your basic argument seems to be that when someone uploads media to the Internet, they MUST expect that people are going to copy and share it, because that's what people do; thus, uploading content surrenders your rights to it.
Let's say I drive my expensive car out into the ghetto, or any poor part of town. I leave the windows down and my iPod in plain view, and I just leave it there for a few days. Any rational person must expect that the iPod (perhaps even the car) won't be there when they get back. Does this mean that the act of leaving the car there NECESSARILY indicates a surrender of one's rights to it and its contents? Are the thieves justified? Obviously not.
Behaving irrationally with your property is not the same as surrendering your ownership of it.
-
I was wondering how your description of your concept formation that leads to your assertion of a generalization about power seekers squares with Objectivist epistemology. And, of course, this is a question that may be addressed by whomever wishes to address it.
According to my understanding of Objectivist epistemology, it squares. Every logical step in the formation and elucidation of concepts does not need to be related back to percepts (let alone sensory information); one must just be sure that the first step originates in sensory information and that logic is applied correctly from there. Thus, taking a higher-level concept (such as a power-seeking individual) and applying logic to it (what the possible motivations could be, and what the outcome of an individual acting on those motivations would be) is perfectly acceptable. If I've always only seen people eat food on tables, and then I wonder whether one could also play poker on a table, I can determine that directly from the concept of "table," without thinking about the specific tables I observed to form the concept.
-
I’ve recently become very interested in the ideas of Objectivism. I have been reading this board for about a month or so, having posted very infrequently (as you may see), but I have a rather complicated question that I’d like help exploring. I’ve found Ayn Rand’s ideals and conclusions incredibly appealing, but per Objectivism I am attempting to derive/validate them for myself, step by step.
Okay, so my question basically concerns the use of principles to guide moral action. As a particular example (the example that brought me to this question, in fact) let’s take the Objectivist principle that one should not seek to gain values through faking reality. As I understand Rand’s reasoning, this principle derives from the fact that when you gain, say, friendship by lying or deceiving others, you basically make yourself dependent on them. You must continuously keep up the deception so as not to allow the gap between their knowledge and reality to collapse (as illustrated quite passionately in the AS scene in Galt’s Gulch concerning Galt, Dagny, and D’Anconia). I concur that this is obviously contrary to long-range self-interest.
However, let’s take a situation in which it is quite likely that the person with which you are dealing will never see you again, nor will they encounter anyone you know. In fact, if they are on their deathbed, this condition is almost certain (if no one else is around and they will not have any other visitors before their passing). It would seem to me that applying the principle “one should not seek to gain values by deceiving others” to this situation is an instance of context-dropping, in the same way that applying Newtonian physics (contextually true, within the context in which he experimented) to the subatomic level is context-dropping. The context of long-term contact with this person from which the principle was derived is fundamentally different from the given context. I would love it if people in this forum would give me your take on why the principle of refraining from deception applies to this situation, if you think it does.
I don’t want to put words in people’s mouths, but I also would like responses to actually be helpful, so I will go through a few objections I’ve seen to similar questions that I haven’t been able to validate with my own reason. One common objection is that this would be destructive of one’s self esteem. One would be living as a “moocher” or “leecher” and the subsequent destruction of one’s values of independence and self-esteem would be destroyed. This seems to me to take one’s derivative values (never desiring an unearned benefit) as a primary over the ultimate value to which they serve as means (life). If one cannot validate that connection (i.e., if in this case the principle of never gaining values through deception does not connect to rational self interest, because the context is different) then one’s low self esteem would be the irrational part, not the action taken.
I’ve also seen some objections to similar questions along this vein: principles are shortcuts that people use based on their previous knowledge, and if you don’t consistently act on the principle of non-deception (I’ll nickname it), it will get you in trouble eventually. This also doesn’t make sense to me. If people are using Newtonian physics, but then we discover that in some circumstances it gives us the wrong answer, we obviously should not ignore this because it’s still right the vast majority of the time. We don’t throw out Newtonian physics, but we DO revise the context in which we apply it. When that context doesn’t apply, we use the Theory of Relativity. Similarly, could not one be cognizant of context such that the original principle is not abandoned but is still not used in cases like the above deathbed scenario?
I’d really appreciate some help and feedback as I explore these ideas. I’ve learned a lot already from reading these boards; I hope to get good value out of this thread as well.
-
what if the gold standard was still enacted and money was in so limited of supply with the growing population? Then how could businessmen sell goods to the masses? Would inflation still exist - but in a different way?
The first thing to understand is that there is no "optimal" supply of money. If there are a certain amount of goods moving around the economy at a certain velocity, both 1 trillion dollars and 10 trillion dollars are perfectly acceptable as a money supply (or, talking gold, either 1000 pounds or a million are perfectly acceptable). Prices will simply shift to clear the market. The relationship between the amount of value and the amount of money determines the overall price level, but the specific level is irrelevant. It makes no difference to me whether I pay a dime for a Coke when the CPI is 1 or a dollar for a Coke when the CPI is 10.
Inflation understood as an expansion of the money supply would not exist (aside from gold being mined at a very slow rate). In terms of the price level, overall prices would actually fall over time, because innovations will make producers able to create more wealth, while the money supply would not change (but for mining). Thus, with more value and the same amount, the price level would fall, and you would see deflation.
I then thought - in the future would everyone be a machine tech or what? Will ultimately the % of manual production type assembly line workers drop, while the human population grows? If this is the case - it seems like education must become more specialized and work faster so that people are better prepared to enter their chosen field. I am basically contemplating all of this plus the fact that education is a relatively long process to specialize - and that future degrees of specialization will have to be accomplished much quicker - especially due to the increasing rate of technological growth.Yes, education most definitely has become specialized, and will become much more so. Every new programming language or technological innovation requires more specialization, and the laws of supply and demand for labor will draw people into education that will tend to make them productive in such a system. Education in terms of job preparation is not a long process to specialize at all; school does not equate with education. After learning the basics of math, science, and langeuage, I could learn a programming language on my own and be a valuable, very specialized individual. School is definitely slow to become specialized, but this is precisely why less and less knowledge used in one's job actually comes from school (more comes from specialized job training, independent learning, etc.)
-
Can anyone tell me the objectivist position on the ends justifying the means?
I know this is another silly life boat scenario, but hear me out:
Let's say you were alive in 1890. Hitler was one year old. Somehow, you knew that this baby was going to kill millions. Would it be moral to kill the baby? I know we can get technical, and ask questions about context/choice/feasibility, but please focus on the idea at hand...do the ends ever justify the means?
If yes, does that mean that objectivism has an element of utilitarianism?
If no, isn't that anti-human life?
Nothing resulting from this scenario can have anything to say about Objectivism's application in this universe. Certainty about a future event is not possible in reality. In reality, the point at which we are CERTAIN someone will violate rights is the exact same point in time at which they BECOME guilty for doing so, because this is the instant they ACT in order to do it. One might find it interesting to contemplate the given scenario, but such lines of thought do not really say anything about practicable Objectivism.
-
It may be immoral, but it's not nihilistic, since he values his son.
No, its premise is not nihilistic. It is evil, though, and that's why I'd list it here.
-
No one has said anything about John Q yet? A desperate father who can't pay for his son's medical treatment takes a hospital hostage in an attempt to force the doctors to treat him? Ranks pretty high on my list.
Absolutes and Objectivism
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
The Objectivist ethics holds that "good" and "evil" are concepts which arise out of the relation between external reality and the requirements of man's life. Man is a specific type of entity, with a specific nature. If any particular man chooses to live, then ethics tells him what course will be beneficial or harmful to him. Thus, what is "good" is neither an overriding moral absolute, true regardless of context, nor a social convention. The good does not consist of commandments or categorical imperatives because ethics originates in a choice: an individual's choice to live or die. However, the good is also not a social convention, because once that choice has been made, the specific actions which will further this goal is a matter of objective reality, not whim or social construction.
Such rights violations as murder and genocide are "absolutes" in the sense that the facts which give rise to their moral status (as evil) are facts about man's nature in general, and thus as principles they apply to every man. However, Objectivism does not view morality as an imposition on man from some higher authority, so the principles which condemn murder and genocide are not artificially imposed. Morality arises from the choice to live, and those principles arise from man's nature. Murder and/or genocide are never good strategies for the long-run flourishing of any man.