Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by dream_weaver

  1. That helped delineate the thought line, especially the reference to the final scene of the wet-nurse.

    The For the New Intellectual post had introduced "primacy of physical life", and a quick search showed that the phrase had already gathered some 'social' traction.

    The Research CD provides a return for "primacy near life" that expanded on this in a literary sense from Chapter 6 of The Romantic Manifesto (105):

    Such issues as the fact that the primacy of values in human life is not an irreducible primary, that it rests on man's faculty of volition, and, therefore, that the Romanticists, philosophically, were the champions of volition (which is the root of values) and not of emotions (which are merely the consequences)—were issues to be defined by philosophers, who defaulted in regard to esthetics as they did in regard to every other crucial aspect of the nineteenth century.

  2. Andrew Bernstein has oft suggested a value intoxicated being as a 'goal' or practice of the morality of reason. In the afore mentioned context of "primacy of physical life over value", extrapolated from an analogous primacy of existence over consciousness, the role of conceptual consciousness is also touched upon in Galt's Speech to define identities and discover causal relationships. Primacy of physical life over value, as structured, suggests valuing the primacy of physical life more. Is this another recursive structure established on the same/similar metaphysical basis as morality?

  3. He speaks at the end of everything being the consequence of choices. 

    He speaks also of actions based on emotions while never bring up or identifying that emotions are the consequences of the ideas chosen and held.

    @whYNOTa separate thread, an uncommented upon link? Are you tossing out bones here, or do you think this somehow ties in and advocates the roles of reason and morality in shaping the course of history?

  4. 20 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

    Part of me isn't sure I was right not to kill her then and there.  And that is one of the primary things that still fucks with my psyche to this day.

    The fact that you are writing this in retrospect tells me that you likely assessed the situation correctly.  

    You state:

    20 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

    in obvious fear for her own life,

    This suggests to me that you had already assessed that it was she that feared you.

  5. It should prove interesting to contrast Dr. Andrew Baker's eyewitness testimony of the cause of death with Dr. Michael Baden's and Dr. Alecia Wilson's later eyewitness testimony of the same.

    Dr. Michael Baden's eyewitness autopsy testimony regarding Michael Brown was key in establishing the fact Brown was facing, not fleeing Officer Darrin Wilson when Brown had been shot in Ferguson, Missouri back in August 2014.

  6. 2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

    I'm not sure what you mean, computing power can be evaluated independently. Not potential computing power; it is computing power. 

    Is the computing power of a bitcoin stored in a bitcoin wallet? Is it part of the exchange, something necessary for a user of a Bitcoin in a transaction needs to understand, or a background process like the printing presses that Federal Reserve Notes are made upon.

    Even this conversation seems much more complex than need be for understanding a transaction. Granted, I have years of transactions at thousands of cash registers, on both sides of the counters. I've experience credit card transactions as a consumer. Pay Pal added an extra level of complication. Many accept such complications as part of the process. For an occasional user, it is an added aggravation to have to deal with.

  7. 31 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

    Crypto is based on computing power and computing time. 

    That would be "the committee of they" providing the stamp of approval. Arguably a service rather than a finished good or product that can be assayed independently, as in an acid test for the purity of gold. 

    To crypto's credit, the acceptance and use of it is based on mutual consent between the trading parties, for now.

    Like many things, such as paintings and classic automobiles, moments of fame are granted when new highs (expressed usually in some form of government fiat) are attained. 

    KFC is not expressing the price of a bucket of chicken in a decimal fraction of a Picasso though.

  8. Federal Reserve Notes are currently fiat by law. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, as well as many other forms of storing wealth, do not share that status. Instead of a tri-metal, quad-metal, etc., approach, the crypt-keepers are tossing their hats in the ring with the other fiat currencies while offering what appears to be a decentralized regulating process. Currently, Bitcoin is the rhodium of the genre.

  9. On 4/1/2021 at 10:53 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

    September Second could also be abbreviated with Roman Numerals as 9/II

    Wouldn't that be IX/II?

    Want to tie correlation into Wonder Woman 1984? Consider extending the capricious connection to  Kristoffer Polaha.

  10. Many speculators profited during the tulip mania. 

    The Bitcoin phenomenon got me to explore the entrance to the rabbit hole. Metaphorically, like gold, one does not have to own a claim to own a final product of what starts as a claim. Panning river beds and delving into the earth have both yielded fruit. Both mining approaches have had products developed to enhance or improve productivity. 

    To the depth I plumbed the Bitcoin, the above analogy is what I drew in parallel. Still, the claim of paper money is as valuable as gold is only as valid as redeemability goes. 

    An appreciating currency offers lower prices on future purchases to net savers while discouraging speculative lending. The corallary to Gresham's law is based on bad money (currency) drives out good.

  11. 27 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

    Nah, that's a pretty direct reference to International Worker's Day

    Interesting parallel to Labor day. The May Day I was reared about dealt with a flag pole, ribbons and flitting about. Go figure.

  12. 18 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

    Rand started writing AS on September 2, 1946. I don't suspect her of using numerology. Just self-reference.

    She also used May 1st for implementing Direction 10-289. Perhaps this was meant as a subtle hat-tip toward a Mayday distress signal? Again, hardly numerology.

  13. People have a right to be wrong. Kant is even considered to be evil for his rationalization. As was pointed out, the surgeon, in the thought experiment, by making a false claim, is being fraudulent.

    Peikoff wrote a case study for the cause of the Nazi Germany Holocaust. Rand wrote an eloquent defense for Kant in For The New Intellectual, pointing out anyone who accepted his ethics or politics, shame on them. The Nuremberg Trials held individuals guilty primarily for actions regarding the concentration camps.

    It is not a crime to be an evil thinker, provided one does not become an evil doer, violating the rights of another.

    The OP is a variation on inciting a riot. In analogy, it is establishing, via a line of reasoning, a condition alleged to lead to criminal activity.


  14. 9 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

    Alright.  Where do you think we're heading?

    Back to the future. The discoveries of an unprecedented theory of concepts, a metaphysical basis for morality, treatises from the roots of war to it's counter-part in the yet unknown ideal provided by capitalism, await more minds that value them.

    The Verunca Salts are singing "I Want It Now", while the Oompa Loompas are queueing up for their retort of " Who Do You Blame When Your Kid Is A Brat." 


  15. 3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

    Yes Greg, but you reason it out as you are grasping it. As in, it logically makes sense. And it logically would not make sense to deny it.

    Once you grasped it, isn't it unavoidable, unchangeable in it's "truth"?

    Rand stated in Atlas Shrugged about Aristotle's incomplete formulation "existence is identity" with her offer of completion "consciousness is identification". There are really two parts. The identity that is given by existents. The identification that is provided by consciousness, which also help to have it be maintained for future reference.

    Peikoff added something for me in his introduction to logic about A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, and in the same respect.

    3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

    In other words, isn't "the truth", (not my truth or your truth), independent of my or your consciousness? In that sense, it is unchangeable by any of us. (not that "it" does not change). It is what it is. That is what I am getting at but I would like to say it in a way that people see it and agree with it, but I have not been able to.

    Now, if the term "axiomatic knowledge" is used, wouldn't that imply "a subset of what we are aware of (not what we know to be true, but we are aware of)", that is immutable. It should not change. The concept "existence exists" should not change into "what exists doesn't exist". Epistemologically it "should not change". Metaphysically "it does not change".

    As you point out, reasoning it out as you are grasping it is helpful. In talking to others, you cannot reason it out for them. If you understand the reasoning well enough, let them indicate where they are in their process of understanding and you may help them take the next step. This is a skill, and like any ability, man is not born with it. Objective (not Objectivist) communication is a skill to be learned, developed and by some, mastered.

    Consider the clarity with which Rand wrote. Few write well enough to also read it straight to an audience as she did in Philosophy: Who Needs It. This may come as a surprise to you, but there are some who don't agree with it.

  16. 1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

    In "what you know to be true is mutable"

    I think he is using "what you know to be true" to mean "what you think according to your knowledge (or assumed knowledge) to be true"

    and not using "what you know to be true" (in this context) to mean that "the truth in reality of which I actually know".

    So another way to put it would be: "What I know is mutable, allowing me to bring my knowledge into alignment with what is true."

  17. 19 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

    Point #4 should be obvious to anyone who really understands Atlas Shrugged and its relevance to the modern world.  We are either heading for a Golden or a Dark Age and Objectivist Epistemology is what we all need to understand in order to avoid it. 

    In a benevolent universe, unless there is reason to expect calamity and/or disaster, cooler minds should prevail.

  • Create New...