Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saurabh

  1. Thanks Grames. Now the question is if he intended to make this point, why did he write the previous statement? See below: He could have simply written the subsequent statement which you have pointed out. May be I am splitting hairs here. But, I was wondering if he meant that unless a reason for is--> ought is given it is inconceivable to acccept this transition.
  2. Jackethan, All I am interested in is knowing where exactly in his quote (captured in my original post) does he make this point? I can't seem to figure it out - may be due to his language... I belive that this quote is the only source where Hume has made any comment on is-ought problem..
  3. Hi all, I came across the is-ought dichotomy recently, and it appears that there is just one paragraph from one of Hume's writings that mentions his position on the matter. See below: It appears that it is from this paragraph that people have concluded that Hume meant that an 'is' cannot imply an 'ought'. May be I am not understand Hume's language well - but I do not see which lines in Hume's para convey the above meaning. All I gather is that he expects that an ought "..shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given..", when one is jumping from an is to an ought. Can anyone throw some light? Thx!
  4. Guys, Thanks for your suggestions. Based on your suggestions, I have already looked at Business examples, Dr Vilayanur, Lie to me, etc. I will also look at other examples suggested (e.g. Inherit the Wind, etc). Thanks again!
  5. Yeah - business world will have good examples..Thx! Since this audience is Indian kids (and not very highly aware of western Phiosophers), I want to avoid using examples of Aristotle, etc. They will better relate to Buddha. And as I read Buddha's biography (by Deepak Chopra), I see instance where he applies CT. I am interested in specific/isolated instances, at this point. So, I will even use examples of intellectuals whose Philosophical system I may not agree with.
  6. Hi all, I am about to launch a University-level course in Critical Thinking. This course will help me promote the Virtue of Rationality (The basic virtue under Objectivism). For this, I am looking for some good examples that could make the course more exciting. These examples could be in any of the categories below: Specific instances of Path-breaking Men showing Critical Thinking (e.g. Buddha, Darwin ) Fiction/Movies that capture Critical Thinking (e.g. 12 angry men) Any other source of info that I could use (e.g. a book, article, etc) I just wanted to check with members on this forum for any suitable examples that I could use. Please let me know. Thanks! Saurabh
  7. TLD, My question's context was in the realm of Production. (I have got a very good reply already from 2046). 2046, Many thanks for your reply. It is indeed very helpful. Also, I am amazed at how you can recall the actual page numbers as well! Thanks again guys!
  8. Hi, I am interested in knowing Objectivism's position on 'Competing with Others'. I vaguely remember John Galt saying (in AS) that he does not enter into Competitions. I also have a vague sense that AR says that Life is not a Zero-Sum Game so, human beings need not compete with each other. But, all the above are vague impressions. Can anyone point me any specific source? Thanks! Saurabh
  9. May be you are right. But I will still reach out to him someday. I sensed lot of pain and genuineness in his eyes, on a youtube video. And I am aware of the human cognitive biases as well. So, I would not form an opinion on him based on one or two dots. Nevertheless, even if a negative opinion gets formed over time - one can still persuade an intelligent person. At least the rules of the game would be known with such a person. Indian saints used to do Philosophical debates among each other in ancient times. The rules of the game were: We will use logic to argue, and whoever looses would become a convert.
  10. SN, My point is that it is not Spreading that is required. What is needed is Penetration...
  11. Sure - I would approach this in a cold rational manner. I am not emotionally (irrationally) attached to the idea. I will reach out to him when I am ready (could be in 1-2 years or before). Meanwhile, if anyone else is also interested and serious about the matter, please feel free to reach out to me - or even to point out any flaw/contradiction in my approach.
  12. The battle of ideas ain't going to be easy... A rational and purpose-driven person would not get deterred by the difficulty of the task. My in-going hypothesis will be: "He is a smart man. So, why would he not listen to logic? Now, only if I collect strong evidence that he is irrational and incorrigible, would I stop. But, let me reach out to him and check.." I have a vague feeling that lot of people hate him just because he is so smart...
  13. Exactly. I would also add that this is one of the two things needed. The second thing being - the application of a high level of Intellect. I will elaborate on this piece in future, as I develop my thinking further. My objective is to see how consulting (e.g. McKinsey, etc) business problem-solving skills can be applied to solving problems at Societal and Individual level. The first step is to identify the nature (root causes) of the problem. The problem in this case being: the less-than-desired dominance of Objectivism in the world.
  14. One can argue with him and try to convince him why Individual Freedom is a virtue. Actually, this is the kind of effort that may make sense for an Objectivist to make.. If he still sticks to his position illogically then we can ignore him.
  15. My point was different. I meant using high-IQ people to build a better case for Objectivism - not to use their name to sell existing arguments. AR was a genuis. She was able to make amazing theories. Similarly, another genuis can take Objectivism further. He could do the following: - Use his Knowledge and Intellect to build more theories (e.g. similar to AR's theory on 'Why does Russia has most chess Grand Masters', similar to her Theory of concepts, etc) - Attack all existing wrong Philosophies in the world, based on his Knowledge (e.g. I have not seen any Objectivist addressing Indian Philosophies. Mostly people talk about Plato and Aristotle) - Apply better conceptual integrations (e.g. show people how their lives have worsened due to irrational behavior) - Do some of the things AR wanted herself to do (I think there was something on Music - can't remember exactly) - Figure out what else needs to be done! I strongly disagree with the 'Should' part above. The issue with Objectivism is not Publicity. Do all of the people who are well aware of Objectivism, fully Practice it? Even Peikoff said to AR that it was difficult to be like her heroes (Roark/Galt). Therefore, the issue is lack of Adherence (which is due to lack of full Acceptance and/or Will-power). These are the issues that need to be addressed. Now, though will-power is a matter of personal choice, a genuis can still add value (e.g. Hazlitt's book on Will-power). My hypothesis is that Objectivism needs more Intelligent people than it has today. It may have lot of people with high Integrity - but that alone is not enough to achieve the purpose. My evidence for this hypothesis is that I have not seen any famous Objectivist having graduated from an Ivy league institution - or even teaching there. I must admit that I have not done a thorough search at all. Which is why this is still a Hypothesis. And I am rational enough to change my view if evidence is there. In the course of next few years, I will explore this in more detail. But, reactions to this hypothesis are welcome. I will use these to refine my view.
  16. Guys, I think that if one is to promote Objectivism, one would also need a high level of Intelligence (apart from Integrity/Honesty/etc). In this context, I wonder why one (or ARI, etc) would not reach out to high IQ people like Chris Langhan to help make better arguments/theories in support of Objectivism. I believe that he has read Ayn Rand (at least Anthem).. Thoughts?
  17. Thanks SN - I will go over these books and change my view if appropriate. The issue that I now see is: Why is this book not being read by Objectivists? If they are not reading it, how will others read it? But, I myself would come back to this issue after reading the books... One solution could be that experienced Objectivists can publish a list of essential books that explain the Philosophy well. I don't want to hijack this thread, so would post this in a separate thread (after checking is such as thread already exists or not).
  18. Guys, OPAR states that Independence is a Virtue of Primary orientation towards Reality, rather than towards other Men. I want to explore the validity of a similar conclusion for the Business world. So, Independence for Businesses would be a Primary orientation towards Reality (i.e. the value-creation opportunity that the Reality holds), rather than towards other Businesses. This, if established convincingly, would have profound implications for the Business world. Currently, many businesses are oriented towards Competition. This often takes their focus away from Reality. Blue Ocean Strategy recognizes this (though it does not use this language) - and focuses on creating new market spaces, rather than on making the 'ocean' 'red' by unnecessary competition. My question to you is: Have you seen this idea (i.e. Virtue of Independence for Businesses) captured anywhere in Objectivist literature. If yes, I would start wondering what took me so long to get to this realization! !
  19. Sirius1, I will have to ask you to clarify what your point is. I read the OODA article - but want to ensure I am able to integrate it with my points in the thread.
  20. I think it is amply clear that guy is not an Objectivist. So, I would not waste any additional time on this. What I want to raise is a worrying trend that I see from this example: Half-baked Objectivists do more harm to Objectivism than do non-Objectivists. In the battle of ideas, it will be a good idea to refute these kinds of articles. I would think that, since these are so many people who could hold these wrong views, it would be extremely difficult to target each of them and to intellectually persuade them. One would need to identify and target the 'prime movers'. One would need to attack the issue very systematically - and in accordance with Objectivist principles. One of the big gaps I see is that there is no book that explains Objectivism in a Lucid manner, and also that attacks these wrong notions about Objectivism comprehensively. OPAR has room for improvement as well (can elaborate if asked). My objective is to plant a seed through this post. *** Mod's note: Response about books on Objectivism was split to this new topic. - sN ***
  21. SN, You are right. After some more thinking, I am now more clear on what I am after. As captured in another post of mine on Decision-making, I am actually after the essential ingredients of Human Achievement. In this context, I was seeking to understand what separate roles 'DM' and 'Intelligence' play in Human achievement. I now have a good answer, as below: There are three ingredients for Human Achievement: Decision-making, Effort made after the decision, Speed of doing the first two. 'External circumstances' is a fourth factor - but I think it is a Secondary factor, not a Primary one. Intelligence, in my definition, is the ability to take decisions (which needs Problem solving, Awareness, Reasoning, etc). It does not matter if someone wants to define Intelligence differently. My purpose is to find the essence of Achievement. And I can also call the 'Ability to take decisions' as XYZ, instead of calling it Intelligence. So, as of now I do not want anything more through this thread - unless of course anyone wants to react to this post. Thx!
  22. Guys, I am now approaching this question step-by-step. So, the first step is to understand the role Decision-making plays in Human achievement. In the second step, then, I will seek answer to why DM need to be done Rationally (and hence Independently). Now, I know OPAR argues that Man has volition - the power to make choices. But, I want to go ahead and say that it is the exercising of this very power that differentiates an achiever from a non-achiever. So, my conclusion that I want to drive towards is: Man has Volition - and must exercise it in order to Achieve. Below is my attempt at making a deductive argument for the claim that "DM is a key driver of Human achievement": 'There are hundreds of possible end-states in a man's life. Very few of these have a high achievement quotient (AQ). In order to reach these high AQ end-states, one needs to make right choices to be able to reach there. If one lives a passive life, then one has lowers one's chances of reaching these high AQ possibilities'. Once this point is proved, I will go on to assert that in order for Man to go from his current position to an end-state of high-achievement, he just needs two key ingredients: Right Decision-making, and the necessary Effort after taking the decision. These two will be the essence of Achievement. Of course, there is 'noise' factor called external circumstances and stimuli. But, these will be shown to be Secondary and not Primary. Malcolm Gladwell, in one of his books makes a hideous point that Human achievers were a product mainly of their circumstances. This is becoming a long post. So, in short and for now, what I need from you guys is your reaction (refutation/modification) to my Deductive argument. Thx!
  23. In fact, I have refined my definition a bit, as below: Smartness/Intelligence is the ability to deal with reality (including People) speedily Dealing with reality means: - Making a broad range of abstractions/concepts to understand reality - Comprehending and Interpreting information - Reasoning (Analytical: Deduction, Logical: Thinking Rationally and not by Emotion) - Judgment (of Past) - Applying those abstractions/concepts to a broad context of reality - Problem Solving - Decision making (for Future) I also capture below, what I think Intelligence is not: - Ability to memorize facts (e.g. Vocabulary, GK, etc) without being able to use them - Ability to solve abstract problems without being able to apply them in real life Thoughts/Reactions/Modifications?
  24. I see this in a few cases for sure. However, I do not know if this holds true in general - though I 'believe' it does. The point is: I want to understand the causal linkage through which this (Independent Decision-making driving Achievement)takes place. So, in a way, I am looking for a Theory. If are able to deduce your examples, I will have no reason to refute.
  25. Guys, I am seeking to know the key elements of Smartness/Intelligence. This will help me understand how a human being can improve oneself on this dimension. For this, I am initially seeking a good Definition of Smartness/Intelligence. AR's definition is a bit unclear to me: "Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions". However, this definition does not 'explicitly' mention 'Reality' anywhere. A chess player can also deal with a broad range of abstractions - but there is no productive/practical use of this kind of intelligence (my view on Chess). I am also of the opinion that standard IQ tests do not measure a man's ability to deal with reality. I think a better definition could be: "Smartness/Intelligence is the ability to make a broad range of abstractions/concepts to understand reality, and the ability to apply those abstractions/concepts to a broad context of reality". Thoughts/Reactions? Thx!
  • Create New...