patrik 7-2321
-
Posts
106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by patrik 7-2321
-
-
In the name of Simon Cowell, I'm not being rude. But look at this concept.
(Source: http://dictionary.ca...nce?q=relevance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
relevance
noun /ˈrel.ə.vənt s/ (also relevancy)
Definition
the degree to which something is related or useful to what is happening or being talked about
What relevance does that point have to the discussion?
Opposite: irrelevance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, dream_weaver said something very interesting:
The induction is not how did this individual or that individual acquire material values, rather - what human activity makes the material values possible in the first place.Why is it not? When "man's means of survival" means "that which man uses to gain values". I think of a means of survival as the part of an organism which the organism uses to obtain values. The book "Objectivism in one lesson" by Andrew Bernstein likens the role of man's reason to the wings of a bird, or claws of a lion, which is the way I've thought about it all along so at least I am pretty sure I have the concept right. If we thus are to induce what man's means of survival is, then surely we must look at how individuals aquire values?
Second, Isn't there a danger of being too collectivistic here? Are you saying the principle is not about the means of survival of an individual man, but of mankind?
Integrating this fact with facts derived from ethics can later illustrate the role productivity should play in the rational man's life.What facts from ethics do you have in mind?
-
In the course OTI (Objectivism through induction, by Peikoff) I continually run into a problem in the second lecture which deals with reason as man's means of survival.
The lecture has the following structure:
- Reduction of "means of survival" and "reason". Very simple.
- Induction (in stages):
1. Observe human (material) values.
2. Observe that they are produced by humans.
3. Observe that reason makes the productive process possible.
In the second stage of the induction a premise is simply stated, which is something like "A human being must produce values in order to gain them". And then the proof builds on this to conclude that since reason is the means of production then a human being survives by means of it.
This premise seems arbitrary to me. Certainly I don't condone theft or anything but looking at this philosophically, I can't see where it comes from. I understand that a productive person is better off psycholocially, but not nessecarily materially, given the examples I can come up with. Because looking at history it would seem that the most materially affluent ones were never the most productive ones, and thus it seems that production is not absolutely nessecary for material wealth.
So how do I understand this lecture? What is really the idea of the role of production in a man's life that Peikoff assumes, and what is it's proof?
- Reduction of "means of survival" and "reason". Very simple.
-
Now the only problem is: how do I get a signed copy? Does anyone think he will be at OCON and sign books next summer?
-
I have two suggestions, both of which come well recommended but I haven't yet tried myself:
- Jean Moroney (who I believe is Harry Binswanger's wife) teaches thinking tactics at http://www.thinkingdirections.com
- Peikoff has a course called "The art of thinking". Check it out on http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com
- Jean Moroney (who I believe is Harry Binswanger's wife) teaches thinking tactics at http://www.thinkingdirections.com
-
Some ideas:
- Reality Check
- Philosophy Weekly
- The Logical Life
- Reality Check
-
This is probably the ARI sponsored documentary. It's the same trailer that shows up on ARI's Atlas Shrugged website: http://atlasshrugged.com/
-
I know of two. Craig Biddle writes here under the name "The Objective Standard". Don Watkins has an account "DPW", although it says he was last active in 2006.
-
I'm not from Norway but close. Over here the term "right-wing extremist" usually means someone who's a racist nationalist.
-
Can't you change program at your university to something more meaningful?
-
Adam Curtis is a very, very confused man. The only positive things about this documentary is that Ayn gets in the media, and it names the cause of 9/11: political islamism.
-
CS thanks for that link. The guy gives away the first draft to his book for free, almost 400 pages. I thought there was something wrong first but I believe he is serious. The book is really good, and he just gives it away!? Strange, but I like it. I think this will help me alot.
-
I've seen a number of his videos, and he is nowhere near an Objectivist. He's an atheist, but that's not because he dismisses the arbitrary but for other reasons. He likes science obviously, but only because it's good for mankind. In several videos he explicitly goes against selfishness. In politics he has made several marxist remarks. So there you go.
-
Quick question about this logic book by Joseph: Did Ayn Rand read it and draw any ideas from it? I know it is recommended by Binswanger, and someone also told me Peikoff recommends it. So I'm just curious if this is some book Ayn Rand personally learned logic from.
-
I liked the first two debates, but not this one.
Allison was not eager to talk about morality, and they went into discussions about what "works" and "doesn't work" for some undefined goal. I think at one time Demos said that "taxes work" and Allison merely responded with "no they don't work because of disincentives to produce blabla...." as if that was a relevant answer. The point of his appearance was to show that unregulated capitalism was moral and not that it "works better", I actually think he implicitly accepted society as the standard of value without realizing it, otherwise he would have chosen different answers and taken it back to morality. And then they started debating statistics, which was a waste of time.
I have the same opinion of Allison as those above, he is a great speaker but he does not debate well.
-
Talking about the bad effects of capitalism on our culture, the new Demos guy says:
As well, it is harder to see ourselves as citizens who share a common fate with total strangers, who think in terms of we, not me.Hm...
-
So does this mean there's a Rand fan at valve? Nice.
-
I think if you were to make an actual artwork out of this it could come out really good. I assume this is just a sketch?
Good: The posture of the woman. It reminds me of egyptian drawings.
Bad: Lack of color and detail.
-
I think it is also rather telling that in order to critique Ayn Rand they have to dig into her personal journals and amplify sommething out of context and make it appear as though it contradicts everything else she's ever written. They then present this as indicative of her views. It is childish, everyone knows that personal journals are not written thinking about how others might interpret them. It just shows how hard it is to find some true faults about her ideas.
By the way, listen to this. I haven't seen this presented in a worse way. I don't know why ARI gets on his show anymore:
(Go to 5:30)
-
It will come out by christmas this year. So, about 8,5 months.
Listen to him answer it in his podcast (1:57): http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2009-04-27.059_D.L.mp3
-
I am looking to buy Darryl Wright's Advanced Topics in Ethics, which is no longer available at the Ayn Rand bookstore.
If you happen to have any other lectures by him, I might be interested in those aswell.
-
This is good news. But there's a catch: It's due 2012!
-
From what I've heard, Nathaniel Branden's book The Psychology of Self-esteem was either endorsed by Ayn Rand or written with her help so I think you should look there. I'm not entirely sure about Ayn Rand's relation to that book, but at least It's one of the best psychology books I've read and to my knowledge accords with Objectivism.
-
I don't think he has Q&A because it takes too long for him to type an answer on his machine.
-
I'll adress that question later but I just have to show you something that I think is interesting, and somewhat relevant here.
It's a simple experiment that shows something about how kids work:
Reason as man's means of survival
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted · Edited by patrik 7-2321
I just have to correct you on two things in case it causes confusion:
Rather, he concluded that the principle to be induced (after removing "basic") was that "reason is an important/essential means of survival", regardless of it's relationship to other survival-means (which would have to be considered at a later point).
Next you said,
Not true. What he did was start reducing the central concepts "means of survival" and "reason", the concretes of the first not even being mentioned. It isn't until a few moments later he starts the induction, and then looks for concrete examples of basic human values, those being food, clothing, and shelter. You are either mixing concepts in your mind or just remembering incorrectly.