Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

VECT

Regulars
  • Posts

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Easy Truth in Inalienable rights   
    The word "free" or "freedom" is contextual, meaning depends on the context the word it is used in (depending on the answer to "free, from what?"), it will mean completely different things.

    The freedom that's talked about in politics is political freedom, meaning the freedom to conduct certain act without retaliation from the government. You have will have all the freedoms and rights proper to a human begin in a free capitalistic society. But the freedom to enslave other individuals is not one of them, because the physical nature of human doesn't give him the right, the justification, to enslave other humans. The physical nature of human does give him the right and justification to have the right to his own life, the right to own inanimate objects, the right to self-defense..etc. in a society.



    That's right, it is called immoral by consensus in our day and age. But that's not the reason why it is wrong. Public consensus doesn't make something morally right or wrong. Whether something is morally right or wrong to human is determine solely by the physical nature of human. If the public consensus coincide with what human nature demands, like in this case of condemning slavery as wrong, then the public consensus is correct. If the public consensus deviate with what human nature demands, like in the case of condemning selfishness as immoral, then the public consensus is wrong.



    And that's one of the biggest flaw in politics today. The politicians thinks the justification for the any political right is the majority consensus, that whatever the majority votes on is right.

    However, humans are objects with set physical nature just like trees or animals. If you want to grow a plant, whether an action is wrong or right in the path of achieving that goal is solely determined by the nature of that plant. One million people telling you it is right to grow that plant in salted soil doesn't make that action right.

    The same goes with humans, with people. If you want to create a society proper to humans, it's the same when you want to create an environment proper to a plant. You base what you do on human nature, and human nature is the sole factor in determining whether something is right or wrong.

    The inalienable rights SHOULD be justified under human nature, by the self-evident. But, the politicians today practice their trade, do it with disgrace and don't.
  2. Like
    VECT reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in Owning Land?   
    So that something useful can be learned from some portion of this thread, this is what a syllogism-in-the-sky, devoid of any real referent whatsoever, looks like.
    A perfectly valid point- that Rand's concept of ownership does not apply to unoccupied land (as she herself pointed out, with regard to the property rights of Native Americans)- was applied to a contradictory context (in which land has been shaped and used after all), severed from its logical base (morality) and stretched into a supposedly universal principle (while pretending that this principle holds no implications for anything broader).
     
    This principle rests on the premise that SUBSTANCE is more fundamental to an entity's nature than ARRANGEMENT is; that a wooden house has more in common with a tree than with a skyscraper, and consequently that man can cause nothing (since we will never be able to create something from nothing).
    Applied to the OP, itself, this means that Jon has said nothing whatsoever because his fingers haven't caused anything at all; the circuitry of his computer has (and we should properly address our indignation to the manufacturer of the keys of his keyboard).
     
    It's false because arrangement must be recognized as the more fundamental trait, and substance as derivative (at least epistemologically, if not ontologically).
    The dishonesty it was suggested with is apparent from the flat refusal to make any number of derivative inductions from it; this is not observed in those who are taking their own ideas seriously.
    Such refusals render any further discussion of it moot, in my opinion, except by way of autopsy.
     
    If you ever need to remember what rationalization looks like, you have a perfect specimen right here.
  3. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Owning Land?   
    @Jon
     
    Hahahahaha.
     
    Let me change a few words here:
     
    VECT, how do you say the poor doesn't have a right to the income of the rich when there is a income tax in America, which assesses and taxes precisely that?
    How inconvenient of you.
     
    Yes, because all current laws are perfect embodiments of rational principles right Jon?
  4. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Owning Land?   
    Labour (physical/mental) + Land (natural resources) = Capital
     
    But nope, apparently the schools he went to taught him those three concepts are somehow mutually exclusive by some arbitrary division, and the hilarity we are witnessing here ensues.
     
    If someone gathers wood, he gets to use that wood for his own purposes, just as a person would with land.
     
    But here is where it gets interesting: if he is going to rent that wood out (or even sell it for that matter), that's when all hell breaks lose. Jon's logic here would only allow this man to charge a fee approximately equivalent to the labour cost of him collecting the wood. Any portion of a fee outside of labour cost is Jon's economic rent, aka fee charged for permission to use natural resources, aka immoral because natural resources (e.g. wood molecules) are not made by men and cannot be owned.
     
    This logic is not noticeable for capitals with low raw materials cost. But just imagine when this logic is been applied to gold:
    Since you can't own the gold atoms, you can only charge your labour cost of digging the gold out when you rent bullions out as financial instruments.
     
    Now, THAT, would be hilarious.
  5. Like
    VECT got a reaction from dream_weaver in Logical truth vs. Factual truth   
    I think I get where I was having trouble now.
     
    I was under the impression that definition produces the concept. Under that view therefore it was hard for me the imagine a concept coming directly from precept.
     
    After reading:
    http://www.proctors.com.au/mrhomepage.nsf/985f14ab922be306482577d5003a2040/4864f5fe3809763a4825789c000dc50a/$FILE/The%20Analytic%20Synthetic%20Dichotomy.pdf
     
    the idea seems to be that definition is just the unique universal characteristic chosen from all of the known characteristics of the concept to best distinguish it from other known concepts. If more new facts are observed that makes the said characteristic no longer universal to all the existent of the concept, or new concept created that makes the said characteristic no longer unique, then new characteristic would have to be chosen as the definition to better serve the identity tag job.
     
    If table is defined as a surface with legs, newly designed table without legs (characteristic no longer universal) or newly created items that have surface with legs but are not table (characteristic no longer unique), would necessitate a change to the table's current definition.
     
    So it's the concept that produces the definition, not the other way around. Now I can see how concepts such as table can come directly from percepts.
     
    And as for logical truth then, it isn't so much as whether or not the definition of a concept adheres to the dictionary, but whether or the definition does its job well as the identity tag for the concept in a given context of knowledge.
  6. Like
    VECT got a reaction from CriticalThinker2000 in Owning Land?   
    Straw-man Jon? 
     
  7. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Eponine in Hong Kong   
    I think asking CCP to withdraw their CE condition (and incidentally granting a purer democracy) in this case is a defensive tactic.
     
    People in HK are wary with Beijing when it comes to freedoms (look at the rest of China). If CCP can pass laws directly from Beijing to affect HK without resistance, today it's a condition on the CE election, tomorrow it can be a condition on the freedom of speech...etc.
     
    If the protest this time pans out and Beijing backs off with their new condition on CE election, that sets a precedent and deters future attempts by CCP to pass laws to affect HK directly from Mainalnd. Also, given the persuasion towards individual freedoms with HK locals, it's less likely any candidate they elected through universal suffrage will stand idly by if Beijing tries to pass laws to limit HK freedoms in the future (or worse, a puppet CE that pass laws to erode HK freedoms from inside out).
     
    Of course, like you said, and I agree, that there is very little chance CCP will coming off looking weak and compromise with the protesters.
     
    Still, one can hope.
  8. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Eponine in Hong Kong   
    Nicky, you place too much faith in laws.
     
    Laws are are just words. The reason they have power is because:
    People recognize authority/sovereignty the words derive their powers from There are people with big sticks willing to enforce the words Hong Kong recognizes CCP's sovereignty over them and also recognizes CCP have the bigger stick.
     
    As long as these two conditions are met, the CCP already have all the power they need to manipulate the laws of Hong Kong as they wish. The only questions left are if they intend to do so, and how gracefully will they do so.
     
    Invade with the PLA and asking Hong Kong to change laws is probably the most crude of crudest strategies, so of course that will never happen.
     
    Having a puppet Executive (who is not answerable to the local people) that will be able to change/add the the laws you want is much more efficient.
     
    When HK was under UK, UK had no interest/intention of using their sovereignty power to manipulate HK by-laws to erode their freedoms, so people then didn't feel threatened and see a need for protest for more democracy transferring political power from the sovereignty to the people.
     
    Now you have CCP, which in HK's eyes is a lot less trust worthy than UK. So when CCP renege on giving HK more democratic power to its people as was promised, HK feels threatened because they fear CCP, as opposed to UK, have the intention of using their sovereignty power to manipulate HK laws in the long-run, to the possible decimation of the  freedoms that HK now enjoys, and they see this act of reneging this transferring of power as a manifestation of that intention. 
     
    Then again, who knows; CCP might not actually erode HK's freedoms any further, even when they have all the power they need to do so, with a puppet Executive and all.
     
    Still, people don't like it when the political power that can limit their individual freedoms lies with a sovereignty their do not trust. That I imagine is the root-cause of this protest, rather than just a protest for democracy for democracy's sake.
  9. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Owning Land?   
    A chunk of metal formed into a machine is capital, and can be claimed as private property (due to production), and can be and rented out to another for a fee.
     
    A piece of land formed into apartment building is capital, and can be claimed as private property (due to production), and can be rented out to another for a fee.
     
    The metals are limited on this earth, and so are the lands. There can be said to be an "economic rent" for both cases. The only difference at the present moment is in the size of this "economic rent" due to the difference in scarcity between metal and land.
     
    This idea of yours that suggest that land (an area of the surface of earth and a limited space above that surface) is inherently different from other natural resources seems to be based on scarcity rather than principle.
     
    But the truth of the matter is, all resources on this earth is limited.
     
    Right now you are arguing that when all the land is claimed, all the land owners that rent out their land is extracting an unearned "economic rent" as part of their rent fee due to the scarcity of land.
     
    In the future when all the metals on this Earth is mined out, would not your logic also suggest that any metal owners that rent their metals out is extracting an unearned "economic rent" due to the now scarcity of metal?
     
    This logic then goes on and on: any natural resource of any kind that gets scarce would apply.
     
     
    In terms of principle, there is no difference between land and all other resources; your argument so far I can see is based purely on level of scarcity.
     
    Practically, the fact of the matter is, land and resources on Earth might be limited, but they are infinite in the universe.
  10. Like
    VECT reacted to CriticalThinker2000 in Are Definitions tautologies?   
    OK awesome.
     
     
    Well, I think it's merely a question of what we need to differentiate the units against. A man made fact is still a fact so if gay marriage becomes legal then it becomes necessary to adjust our differentia to properly differentiate the units. It's all a question of what the context demands we do to keep the units clearly differentiated.
     
     
    But I wouldn't say concepts are formed for the purpose of attempting to provide the clearest contrast between existents. The purpose of forming a concept is to achieve a unit (universal) perspective on a set of existents. It's the purpose of a definition to keep the concepts clearly organized in your head- the genus tells you the wider concept to which the defined concept belongs and differentia distinguishes precisely which units of the genus the defined concept is referring to.
     
     
    The concept 'bachelor' isn't merely subjectively important. There are real, objective reasons for having such a concept. Bachelors tend to party it up, have awesome pads, are available for marriage, etc. It is incredibly useful to have the concept regardless of people's opinions on marriage. With respect to the fundamentality of the essential characteristic (unmarried) vs. intent, I think you have cause and effect reversed. The reason people intend to differentiate between married and unmarried men is because being unmarried is an essential characteristic- it gives rise to other characteristics and actions which make the concept useful in the first place.
     
    Here's a better explanation of what I'm trying to say, from ITOE (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rands_razor.html):
     
    "The requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary grouping of existents, both in regard to isolation and to integration. They forbid the random coining of special concepts to designate any and every group of existents with any possible combination of characteristics. For example, there is no concept to designate “Beautiful blondes with blue eyes, 5’5” tall and 24 years old.” Such entities or groupings are identified descriptively. If such a special concept existed, it would lead to senseless duplication of cognitive effort (and to conceptual chaos): everything of significance discovered about that group would apply to all other young women as well. There would be no cognitive justification for such a concept—unless some essential characteristic were discovered, distinguishing such blondes from all other women and requiring special study, in which case a special concept would become necessary"
     
     
    If we evaluate both kinds of definitions by the standard of what a definition is supposed to do they're equally bad. But point taken with respect to a definition that doesn't even have anything to do with the concept lol. In another way though, the definitions by non-essentials are even more insidious than definitions which are just plain false because definitions by non-essentials give rise to anti-concepts.
     
    Also, the person in your example who is asking "A man who is...?" is only asking that question because he/she realizes that the definition is not properly distinguishing the existents involved.
  11. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Are Definitions tautologies?   
    Hmmm, after some thoughts, here is my view:
     
    Definitions can be tautological, contingent, or contradictory (as mentioned by aleph_1).
     
    The purpose of definition is to cite explicitly the boundary for a concept so people can determine which existent qualifies and which don't.
     
    I would argue all good definitions are always tautological (but not all tautological definitions are good).
     
    Contingent definitions are only good temporarily.
     
    And definitions that are contradictory are just crap, not useful at all.
     
     
    As an example, for the concept "Bachelor":
     
    "Bachelors are unmarried men" would be a good tautological definition. "Bachelors are men" would be a bad tautological definition.
     
    "Bachelors are men who have no wife" would be a contingent definition.
     
    "Bachelors are married" would be a contradictory definition.
     
    The tautological definitions are good for all time. The good tautological definitions state all the critical characteristics of a concept. The bad tautological definitions only state some critical characteristics of a concept. Concepts like "Bachelor" are born from characteristics that is either observed or imagined and deemed important enough to warrant the establishment of a concept. Since these critical characteristics is what gave birth to the concept in the first place, when a definition explicitly refers directly back to these characteristics, that definition is thought to be tautological and is useful in reaffirming the reason why people bothered to establish the concept in the first place.
     
    And of course, any definitions that state characteristics which contradict those critical characteristics that gave birth to the concept is just plainly bad. These contradictory definitions if accepted negate the purpose of the concept completely making it useless.
      Contingent definitions are only good temporarily. These definitions state characteristics that existent of the concept just so happens to have, but are not critical. In the case of "Bachelor", the contingent definition I stated is only good so long as marriages only can happen between a man and a woman. When gay couple can marry, that contingent definition falls apart.
  12. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Rights of Artificial Intelligence   
    Reason is made up of two elements: Fact and Logic.
     
    Given the same access to facts on a subject, rational individuals cannot possibly disagree unless one makes a logic error or intentionally/unintentionally disregard a fact involved.
    Given different access to facts on a subject, rational individuals can very well disagree initially even if none of them makes a logic error.
     
    Since a person making a logic mistake or having less knowledge cannot be criticized as been irrational as long as that person still holds reason as his/her standard of knowledge, the case that rational individuals disagree with each other then can happen.
     
    But given the same knowledge and flawless logic, rational individuals cannot disagree with each other.
  13. Like
    VECT got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Rights of Artificial Intelligence   
    The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, that's your standard of life?
     
    Oh that's easy, I can program something to that effect on Java within the hour.
  14. Like
    VECT got a reaction from DonAthos in Logical truth vs. Factual truth   
    I think I get where I was having trouble now.
     
    I was under the impression that definition produces the concept. Under that view therefore it was hard for me the imagine a concept coming directly from precept.
     
    After reading:
    http://www.proctors.com.au/mrhomepage.nsf/985f14ab922be306482577d5003a2040/4864f5fe3809763a4825789c000dc50a/$FILE/The%20Analytic%20Synthetic%20Dichotomy.pdf
     
    the idea seems to be that definition is just the unique universal characteristic chosen from all of the known characteristics of the concept to best distinguish it from other known concepts. If more new facts are observed that makes the said characteristic no longer universal to all the existent of the concept, or new concept created that makes the said characteristic no longer unique, then new characteristic would have to be chosen as the definition to better serve the identity tag job.
     
    If table is defined as a surface with legs, newly designed table without legs (characteristic no longer universal) or newly created items that have surface with legs but are not table (characteristic no longer unique), would necessitate a change to the table's current definition.
     
    So it's the concept that produces the definition, not the other way around. Now I can see how concepts such as table can come directly from percepts.
     
    And as for logical truth then, it isn't so much as whether or not the definition of a concept adheres to the dictionary, but whether or the definition does its job well as the identity tag for the concept in a given context of knowledge.
×
×
  • Create New...