Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About necrovore

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/04/1975

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Interested in meeting
    Looking for friends.
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I discovered Objectivism in 1997, read all I could about it, and promptly adopted it. However, I don't know if I'm very effective at advocating anything.
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Jacksonville, FL
  • Interests
    Programming (Scheme, F#, C#, C++, Forth, Java, Assembly), Music (Reason 5.0), Writing (Plot, Literary Theory, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror).

Recent Profile Visitors

3113 profile views
  1. It's part of human nature that we all learn the language around us while we are children, and then only later learn grammar, and what "nouns" and "verbs" are, and stuff like that. When we do learn grammar, we become able to make better, more sophisticated, and more precise use of the language. Conceptualization is similar in the sense that we are already doing it before we understand what we are doing, but if we do understand it, we can do a much better job of it. (Conceptualization is also related to language acquisition because you can't really learn language without also understan
  2. [In response to Jonathan's original post] I don't think one can learn philosophy in the same way that one learns a foreign language. When you learn a foreign language, you are mostly learning new words (and grammatical constructions) for concepts that you already know, such as learning that the Japanese word テレビ is "television" and so forth. You don't learn anything new about televisions by learning the word テレビ. That's a fundamentally different process from the one you would use to learn entirely new concepts, and it's also different from the process you would use to add "depth of u
  3. Just a note (I'm not replying to your whole post yet): When I say "smash" I'm talking about D2s specifically. The DIM Hypothesis groups philosophies according to their attitude toward integration; the D2 attitude (which comes from Kant) is that integration as such, and the products of integration, should be destroyed. This was not the attitude of the Founding Fathers or of the Enlightenment period they lived in -- they were trying to replace a bad government with a better one, not merely smash for the sake of smashing. The rioters out there now, the Antifa people and such, aren't really in fav
  4. I end up disagreeing with Yaron Brook here... I was recently re-reading The DIM Hypothesis to help clarify my thinking about these issues. I did come up with a few ideas. The famous quote from Kant, interpreted in DIM terms, is, "I find it necessary to deny reason" (D2) "to make room for faith" (M2)... Interestingly, even though towards the end of The DIM Hypothesis, Peikoff is warning about the rising tide of religion, his big examples of modern M2 thought come from Communism. It is true that Christianity is M2, but so is Communism. I think that Kant's quote above is a roa
  5. Would it be possible to change this site to use https instead of http? Some ISPs insert ads and other junk into http connections. Also, I think search engines are preferring https now. It is possible to get a free certificate from https://letsencrypt.org/, but some technical work would have to be done. The free certificates expire frequently, so it is preferable to get new certificates automatically, which requires setting up the automation.
  6. There is such a thing as subjecting people to greater-than-usual risks without their consent. It makes sense to illegalize that. This is why I cannot keep large amounts of plutonium in my garage. This is why I cannot play Russian Roulette with someone else's head instead of my own. DUI also subjects other people on the road to greater-than-usual risks, and so it is proper for the government to ban it on the same basis. Under a system of private road ownership, a private road owner could choose to allow DUI on his roads, but he would have to specifically inform drivers of the added risk s
  7. A free system would rule out zoning laws. You do have the right to use your property as you see fit. However, there is such a thing as subjecting a person or his property to undue risk (i.e., without his informed consent), and that would probably make a good civil tort. They could sue you. An undue risk is a nuisance, just like playing your stereo really loud or filling the air with smoke. Therefore, if you were handling explosives in your garage that had the potential to explode and kill your neighbors, your neighbors could sue you for subjecting them to an undue risk of death or pro
  8. I'm with ToyoHabu on this one. (Edit: ToyoHabu posted about ten items back; I forgot things are in reverse order.) Unions would be able to exist in a capitalist system, but without coercion, they would have to be more like businesses. "Your business should buy our labor," they would advertise, "because it's high quality and consistent and we take administrative matters off your hands." They would then try to get contracts with companies that need a lot of laborers. If a business tried to break the contract, or if the business was unwilling to offer acceptable terms, the union would refuse to w
  9. The state does not use force to compel attorneys to represent you. The attorneys must volunteer, such as by becoming public defenders, by representing you pro bono, or by accepting payment from you in exchange for their services. Even a public defender can decline to represent you. There might be a valid reason; for example, if a company accuses you of stealing its property, and the public defender is a shareholder in that company, he might wish to avoid being accused of a conflict of interest. If the public defender declines, then the state has to find you another public defender (or hire
  10. I'm a longtime Jacksonville resident, and a UNF alumnus. (Graduated with a Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering in 1997.) Welcome to the forum!
  11. I find myself getting into arguments more often than I want to. I hate arguments. But I suppose I suffer from an irresistible desire to defend my ideas and opinions from all attackers. It starts out simply enough. I'll state my opinion on something. Then someone else will come along and say, "Oh, no, that's wrong, because of these reasons!" And they'll state the reasons. Uh-oh. My reaction varies. Sometimes I think the other person is completely wrong. Sometimes I think that his position has merit and that I should investigate further. Sometimes I think my opponent is producing a bril
  12. I can understand why a theory of everything must be deterministic and physical -- but why does it have to be local? Why can't some entities have a nature such that, when you do something to them, they cause something to happen somewhere else? The remote control for my TV has non-local effects. The TV is several feet away. My cell phone has non-local effects: if I dial the right numbers it can cause the ringing of any one of millions of phones all over the world. Of course this says something not only about the nature of my phone but about the nature of those other phones. Magnets a
  13. necrovore

    Do Your Best

    I don't think it's possible not to know. Did you forget on purpose? Self-knowledge is not really any different from any other kind of knowledge. If you fail to know something about yourself then you are no more morally guilty than the Wright Brothers would have been for failing to know something about flight. If on the other hand you refuse to know something about yourself, then you can say that you are wasting your own time and resources, and there is ground for moral condemnation. People often change majors for just this sort of reason. The question in deciding whether they
  14. necrovore

    Do Your Best

    Misuse of your mind has to be deliberate in order to qualify as misuse. It is not the same thing as using your mind correctly and failing. The first planes built by the Wright brothers didn't fly. Should they have felt guilty over that? Should we blame them and say they were immoral, that they wasted time and money, perhaps because they failed to know their own limitations? I say "Hell no!" Your limitations have to be discovered in reality, not arbitrarily imposed. Sometimes the only way to find out what your limitations really are is to test them. On the other hand if the Wright brot
  • Create New...