Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Posts

    5525
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    235

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to LoBagola in Patterns of ego dependency   
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.
     
    -- Robert Frost
     
    A popular quote. Power derived from others. He took the road less travelled... Maybe it was the one he really wanted, maybe it wasn't. The point is he emphasised that it was less travelled, by others. A while ago I would have used this to make me feel better about any less popular or common view I held.
     
    It's funny because everyone I talk to likes to take the road less travelled. In order to hold a sense of esteem we have to feel superior to others in some vague undefined way. But it's built on a shaky foundation. It requires you to evade so much and miss out on so much good too. With that said, it's not like there is much out there (in terms of resources) to help you built up a solid foundation.
  2. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in Another Question of Right and Wrong   
    I know it's hypothetical, TJ. I'm not accusing you of literal murder; I'm pointing out what you have revealed of the content of your own mind.

    Purposeless time is wasted time and a wasted life is nothing more than a string of that. This is why lifelong goals are crucial to thriving.

    If you mean what you've said of the learning curve then please explain how you discovered the universal law of gravitation. Did you even look at the empirical evidence? If so then elaborate.
    Else concede the point.

    On that final point you've arranged for a philosophical Kobayashi Maru, in which the stranger's very existence threatens your own happiness (because you value solitude). When this has been pointed out you've ignored the question repeatedly.
    What I think you fail to realize is how close this comes to a description of moral insanity.

    At this point there are two possibilities.
    Either you actually think in such terms, in which case you need professional help, or the entire question is some sort of game to see what response you can provoke, in which case the joke will be on you once your life is spent.

    Live long and prosper.
  3. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Boydstun in Slapping N. Branden   
    There is right and wrong. Then there is having rights and violating them. If the latter couple meant the same as the former couple, we could do without the latter two concepts.
     
    Having a right by A against an act by B is a standing potential for making right by B’s act a subsequent act of A against B that would be wrong without the prior act by B. That is the meaning of rights and their violations in terms of right and wrong, a meaning that does not render having a right and violating a right replaceable by the concepts of the simply right and simply wrong.*
     
    Having a right against a battery, such a slap, means that one in response is right to take some act that would otherwise be morally or otherwise wrong. It means one has the moral or other social perogative, for example, to slap back. One could also go to court for battery, and if not laughed out of court, be told sweetly that the law has no cure for trifles.
     
    In the realm of trifles, a “violation of a right” and even a “moral wrong” remains a trifle. Objectivist ethics is not Catholic ethics. How are moral values distinguished from other chosen values in the Objectivist ethics? The answer is given early on in Rand’s “The Objectivist Ethics,” and to call such a slap a moral wrong in these reported circumstances is obscene in terms of this theory of ethics.
     
    To call it an initiation of force, of the character of force initiations undergirding individual rights, is likewise obscene. It is a trivialization, a degradation, of that principle as it undergirds our rights not laughable out of court.
  4. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to theestevearnold in How Do Men of Faith, Who Consider Themselves Objectivists, Reconcile t   
    Dearest SLab, thanks to you and Devil's Ad, for "coming out" on this forum. You both made a superb effort to defend faith.

    God is a specific concept. Men throughout history have been able to smuggle in to the realm of ideas, invalid (arbitrary) concepts, by use of the stolen-concept. This includes defining it by non-essentials or redefining it without explicitly dropping the essentials.

    You said you believe in God, but you had to redefine it. That's not fair to your concept or to people who take definitions seriously.

    Pick a new name for It.

    AR wanted to call her philosophy Existentialism, but it was taken.
  5. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Nicky in How Do Men of Faith, Who Consider Themselves Objectivists, Reconcile t   
    What exactly do I need to accept, to be an atheist?
  6. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Grames in Charles Dickens' Christmas Charol   
    In A Christmas Carol one man, Scrooge, receives a moral education in one night. In Atlas Shrugged, an entire country receives a moral education in 3-4 hours.
  7. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Nicky in Laissez-Faire in the Global Marketplace?   
    Yes, you probably should spend a little more time on defining what you mean by distortions. That's the only way to decide whether anyone deserves to be "protected" from them or not. If the distortions don't consist of initiation of force against the free country's citizens, then there's nothing to protect against. If the "protection" is actually more damaging to the free country's citizens' freedom than the actual distortions, again, they shouldn't exist.
    So, what distortions are you talking about? Give an example.

    So far, I'm aware of nothing that would justify a LFC government using force against its own citizens (which is the only action any government can ever take, outside of war against a foreign entity), to protect them from "distortions".

    The only case in which such an action is justified (in the form of sanctions and other trade barriers), is when there's a physical threat from the other country). The suggestion that a capitalist government should somehow restrict its own citizens' ability to trade abroad, to protect its economy, is yet to be justified.
  8. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to theestevearnold in Laissez-Faire in the Global Marketplace?   
    How could a nation with Laissez-Faire Capitalism remain untainted while trading with mixed-economies?
  9. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from theestevearnold in Laissez-Faire in the Global Marketplace?   
    A possible response to theestevearnold's hypothetical concrete:
     
    It would free up a corn field in Galt's Gultch which might be used to raise milking cows to supply the butter to spread on the gift of corn. The coersive monopoly penalizes the citizens of the country forced to pay the subsidies, not the recipients. When the statist government comes to loot Galt's Gulch, the robust military and competent police force are there for if the good diplomats are met with irrationality on that front. At the risk of playing police officer to the world, military intervention may be used to discourage the statist government from looting its neighbors, leaving the statist government to the fate of the consent of its governed.
  10. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Boydstun in Barbara Branden has passed away 12/11/2013 RIP   
    .
    Dr. Harry Binswanger here joins the grave-pissing club:  Mark Hunter, George Smith, etc.
     
    I respect Binswanger’s philosophical work, but his remark on the death of this woman he despised is sewer. The personal animosities among Rand and her circle will be gone to dust in two decades more, notwithstanding the efforts of the old folks to perpetuate them in the young. 
  11. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from softwareNerd in Seven Wonders of Capitalism   
    Another impressive feat of engineering lauched Dec. 4th, 2013, the Prelude FLNG
     
    It's being compared to the Empire State Building, in that the ship is longer than the building is tall.
     
    Designed to withstand a category 5 storm, it touts an innovative appoach to produce and offload liquid natural gas at reduced costs compared with other methods.
     
    According the Royal Dutch Shell website, it is the largest floating production facility in the world.
     

  12. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to StrictlyLogical in Buridan's Ass   
    I'm sorry, but as far as I know humans and animals choose between equal values all the time.  Watch your dog eat a bowl of dog food.  Every pellet is for the purposes of the dog's hunger and even by the standard of the dog's "differentiating capacity" perfectly identical.
     
    Again the truth is "If all values are equal ALL choices are possible"
     
     
     
    As for a halting problem, in an artificial system that really would require bad programming (equal values to cause inaction causing lack of value), and from a biological evolutionary standpoint if ever such a mechanism appeared in the variation of species, it would almost certainly ensure extinction of that new species within a paltry few generations.
  13. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to aleph_1 in Tasteless political cartoon   
    BA, you are way off the topic now, but that quote from AS is beautiful. We should not let the ugly and pitiful mar our conception of man and of human potential. That tone is flawless.

    Concerning the comic in the OP, I think that one should not read more into it than is there. It takes the zeit geist of "knockout" and associates that with Obamacare. Obamacare has surprized gullible Americans, hitting them upside the head unexpectedly. Of course, the analogy is not perfect.

    Obama let congress write the law. He probably didn't know what was in it until after it was passed. (Imagine Obama b-slapping himself.) Knowing that this is to be his legacy, he has to make the best of it. Unfortunately, like most mystics, he does not know what to do. He left the details to Sebelius and others. (Imagine Obama passing the Tarot deck to her.) A mystic like Sebelius didn't know what to do but to sign no-bid contracts to administration cronies. (Imagine Uncle Sam taking kick backs and ruling over a banana republic.) Now, all the mystical promises Obama made are turning out false. He probably meant every word, but he is a mystic. Things are supposed to happen by whim. When they don't, even he is surprised. He just can't admit that he was wrong since he views himself as morally superior. (Imagine Obama as Jim Jones passing the KoolAid and surprizing even himself when he turns the gun on himself in the end.) Mystics like Obama are the Jim Jones' of the world. It is right to condemn him and his ilk. Identification, evaluation, response-this is the human mode of cognition. I identify Obama as a narcissistic mystic, a very dangerous combination. What should be our response? To play nice?
  14. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Grames in Critique of voluntary taxation   
    Nothing is wrong.
     
    Rand explains why the Argument from Depravity does not work as a defense of capitalism.  Its inherent nihilism makes it impossible to take seriously as an argument in favor of anything.
     
    The argument against anarchism is not an Argument from Depravity, it is a "Rotten Apple"/"House of Cards" argument.  Where as the Argument from Depravity holds that no single man can found good enough to be the dictator of all, the House of Cards argument against anarchism is that a single bad actor can spoil the whole utopian scheme even if everyone else was good.
  15. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in Critique of voluntary taxation   
    Oh, my. It's impossible for any group of people to properly form a voluntary government- because they have free will. Oh.
     
    That's the irrelevance of ideas.
     
    That's an appeal to authority, bastardized because Rand would've been disgusted by anyone who took her word over their own mind, and doubly ironic since you're invoking it in the name of compulsory taxation.
  16. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from JASKN in Critique of voluntary taxation   
    Who's supporting stawman anarchism?  A voluntarily funded, constitutionally limited republic created soley for the task of upholding and defending individual rights is hardly a form of anarchism.
  17. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in The Universal Liar?   
    But are they perceiving falsely, or concluding falsely? The stick appears bent in water. The senses automatically take in the full context. Our conclusions require us to understand how light refracts in water leading to the illusion (or wrong conclusion) that the stick is bent, artificially or misintegratively challenging the infallablity of the senses. We find and fix such errors by recognizing (as in the case of the stick, perhaps via touch) that what we conclude based on one sense without integrating it with the data from the other senses can potentially lead to error. The more interesting aspect is: given the finite nature of our 5 senses, is there data out there that our senses are not cognizant of? Consider our ability to build equipment capable of registering data and presenting it within our sensory ranges, that lie outside of our sensory ranges. (Magnetic Resonance Imaging, radar, infrared imaging, x-rays, microwaves, ultrasound, etc.)
  18. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Nicky in Americans are "narrow-minded"   
    The name calling itself is just a symptom of anti-Americanism. It has absolutely no basis in reality. People who engage in it have no interest in forming an accurate picture of Americans. As for anti-Americanism, it has more than one source (various ideologies, including some already mentioned in hte thread), but the main one, by far, is nationalism.

    The United States is evil simply by virtue of being involved in matters nationalists consider the exclusive purview of members of their own nation. Any foreign meddling, be it positive or negative, is evil by virtue of being foreign.

    The United States is of course the world's superpower, and it does indeed use its power to do a lot of "meddling". Most of it, positive. The United States is responsible for a lot of freedom and happiness around the world. But that's entirely irrelevant to a nationalist. Sure, the US promotes economic freedom in Russia. But, to a Russian nationalist, that's wrong. It's wrong even if that Russian nationalist sees the value of economic freedom, and would embrace the suggestion if it came from a Russian politician. That's just what nationalism is.

    There are of course many, many people around the world, usually people who don't buy into the various collectivist ideologies, who admire the US. It doesn't even have to be people who are outspoken individualists. In fact there are entire countries where the majority of people view Americans very favorably.
    "to agree" is a transitive verb. No point in using it without an object. Just in case you don't know what an object is, it's sharing with the class WHAT it is you think Americans agree with.Is that really how Americans view foreigners? Or are you just saying that because it sounds like something that would confirm your theories?
  19. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in The first cause argument   
    I'm counting the minutes untill the unlikely chance you realize that the improbability driving you to leave them out might occur to you at your next appointment with your hairdresser.
  20. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to StrictlyLogical in knowledge consisting of emotions   
    I just realised that empathetic joy... "feeling" joy via empathy or happiness in response to knowing someone else's happiness.. IS a very selfish and natural thing.
     
    I think only a person who feels anger when someone else feels happiness or feels happiness when someone else feels sad would ever come to the thought that empathy is somehow selfless or laden with duty.. but such a selfless concept of empathy is fraudulent and dishonest... in some sense anti-empathy, strained-empathy, or pretend-empathy.
     
    It's a little off topic.. but I felt something here and thought I'd mention it.
     
    LaBogala it was wonderful hearing you speak like that in post #19! I selfishly enjoyed it!
  21. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Plasmatic in knowledge consisting of emotions   
    SL, in fact many times now after reading Labagola's post It has given me pleasure. Just watching the intellectually honest journey, the constant attempt at integration, the intelligent questions that come out of it, Its refreshing.
  22. Like
    dream_weaver reacted to Repairman in American Revolution   
    qpwoeiru, where do I begin? This is a favorite subject of mine, so I'll try to avoid any oversights or mistakes. I shall attempt to address the subject with the lesser-known facts. The colonial period must be understood for what it was: colonial governments administrated by men interpreting English law to a population of undesirables and opportunists from the British island and northern Europe. Disregarding import duties and trade restrictions was a common practice for those engaged in commerce. Tax officials were easily bribed. After the Seven Years War, (the French-Indian War to Americans), the English demanded their taxes be collected and the war debt be paid. In addition to this, the Crown restricted the creation of new settlements in the lands once claimed by the French and their Indian allies. And as resistance to these new demands required muscle, British troops were poring into the colonies, quartering their soldiers anywhere they bloody well chose. Many of the other facts leading up to the Boston Massacre, and the shoot-out at Lexington and Concord are famous. But to the critical thinker, understanding the general attitudes of colonial communities allows one to understand the difficulty in breaking from the king that had protected their interests, their "father protector," their monarch, their sovereign, and being entirely independent under an unknown ruler, or untested form of government. The question of what sort of government ultimately was the question, but to answer that, one must seek and study the mind of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and an array of philosophers both contemporary to the Founders, and from the distant past. That's all for now. Ask me any time.
  23. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from thenelli01 in Why capital punishment is immoral.   
    I'm picturing someone rolling up a volume of Atlas Shrugged into a roundish object ...
     
    Rape is rape. A rapist should be removed from a rational populance to keep them safe from further instantiaons of the rapist's actions, bearing in mind that with each tax payment, the victim is being re-victimized, if you will.
  24. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from Devil's Advocate in Simple questions of right and wrong   
    One more scenerio, tjfields.
     
    You've already recognised that pursuence of life requires consumption of living entities in many forms. If you built your own shelter, unless you built it stricly from rock, timber or reeds to thatch a roof might be required. If fish or animal is on the menu, the animal must give up its life in order to feed you. Consuming the produce of the land would exhaust the land unless you managed it by not consuming the feed stock.
     
    With this in mind, do you clearcut the land of all vegetation and kill all the animals and stockpile them so you can free up your time to consuming and entertaining yourself on a full time basis?
     
    In post #220 you stated:
    The answer to this question depends on what you are asking. Are you asking is it right to consume the poisonous fruit or mushroom with “right” meaning correct or “right” meaning moral?
     
    If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the correct action to take, then the answer would depend on what you were trying to accomplish given the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill you. For example, if you are trying to accomplish living for another day, then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would not be the correct action to take because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not live for another day. If you are trying to accomplish your death then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would be the correct action because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not be alive.
     
    If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know. All I know is the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill me.
     
    In post #224 you replied:
    If you are asking is killing, or removing, the poison ivy or sumack the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know.
     
    The question of whether these activites are moral action to take or not rest on your choice to live. Parphrasing from what I recall of the OP, you have managed to become quite self-sufficient, even to the extent of devising entertainment of some fashion. This implies you've not only chosen to live, and are not content with mere subsistence, you want the "good life".
     
    Deciding what to eat, what to build, what to devise for entertainment involve a complexity of actions which rest on two things. The right identification of what it is you are dealing with, and the right action to take with regard to the particulars.
    Consciousness is identification. Identification is a process. Ascertaining on if this should be performed rightly or wrongly is made in the light of the choice to live or not. If you choose to live, the right identification and actions need be identified and performed. If you do not choose to live, no further identification or actions are necessary to accomplish that. Morality is only necessary if the choice is to live.
  25. Like
    dream_weaver got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Simple questions of right and wrong   
    tjfields,
     
    If you ran across a deadly yew tree on your island and consumed the fruit, or some poisonous mushrooms, would you consider it right or wrong to consume them?
    If you consider it right, why?
    If you consider wrong, why?
×
×
  • Create New...