TuesdaysThursdays
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by TuesdaysThursdays
-
-
There were no conditions on the bonds, they are mine and have been mine for 8 years now. I have shared my concern many times with him.
I guess I'll sell them to him with warning. Historically when a country hits it's ' take what you can and run ' stages defaulting on bonds is it's first move, so there is really no warning other than 'things are really bad'.
It has been about a year since I've discussed selling them with him so perhaps he has changed his mind about wanting them. I brought the topic up because I intend to sell them this week and wanted some opinions so I could decide if I should even mention it to him at all.
I'll ask again if he wants them and do that if he does.
-
My father saved up money for me to go to college in the form of US savings bonds. When I went away to school I was given the bonds. After school was over I ended up with about 11,000 dollars in high interest savings bonds, 7.5% and higher. That is the value if sold today, not the marked value.
Well, because of my understanding of the current state of the US economy, my desire to get out of US Bonds is very high. I told my father I intended to sell them and invest in something I felt was safer. He asked me to sell them to him, as 7.5 - 11% interest on this safe of an investment is impossible elsewhere.
I feel that if I sell him the bonds, he will lose most, if not all the money in them. I do not know this of course, but I am positive that bonds of any interest are bad investments. I love my father and do not want him to lose money.
I know he would be rather upset if I just cashed them out at the bank instead of selling them to him.
I am looking for some advice.
-
I'm not sure there is much moral insight to glean from the show as an Objectivist. Some decisions Walter has made are very poor, and the creators have all intentions of making it much worse for him, ending season 5 similar to the end of Scarface I imagine.
But from an aesthetic point of view BB is incredible. I have never before seen such a well put together show in all aspects. I respect everyone involved for the skills they necessarily possess for the quality produced. I love to see ability from people almost no matter what the ability is, and I am thankful that in this case it's a show targeting my demographic.
-
I've gone through something somewhat comparable myself so I'll share and hopefully you'll get something from it.
I think you are going to have a very tough time getting over this firstly, especially if the time from breakup to now is very short, 6 months or less. If that is the case the only solution I think is possible is more time apart. I know there is the risk of losing her forever, but it may be your best option so don't remove it from the table all together.
Be sure you communicate how you feel, why you feel that way and find that she understands why you feel that way. If her emotional response to your feelings is satisfactory you need to stop dwelling and move on.
Make sure that the other guy isn't in either of your lives, not in a creepy controlling "stay away from him" way, but in a honest "I need time to get over this, I'm trying, but I cannot do this having him around me or you."
Make sure things are different in your relationship from the last time you were together, not only be 'better', but also change scenery if possible. New apartment, different bed, different furniture, different paint job on walls, something tangibly different helped me handle my relationship the way I wanted to. Don't break the bank in doing this.
Take things slower if you haven't already skipped this. Keep the physical relationship on par with your emotional relationship. The "I've missed you so much" makeup sex is fine if it happened, but backup and slow it down.
Living together already is a bad idea if avoidable. You want to make 100% sure this isn't or doesn't become a relationship of convenience. This goes along with the above point.
As much as your earning her trust back, she's earning yours. Do the best you can to be the person you should be in your relationship, and make sure she understands your needs as well.
Edit: Guess I should add credentials. I am happily married a year and a half now, with our fist child on the way. We spent almost 2 years apart with almost no communication which was very helpful in resolving our issues. We were both in different places in our lives from when be broke up and we each made an effort to make it feel like a different and new relationship.
-
Seems to me your biggest problem right is you have subjugated the power over your life.
You are living by the grace of your father right now. You live off him, and you work for him, and by your description of your relationship he is being self sacrificial for your 'benefit'.
You need to get a job you can stand, don't worry about liking it, you can worry about liking your job when your able to take care of yourself. Move into a place that will make you pay rent on time.
I experienced some short term 'depression' when I was in my early 20's, an independent life and full time job fixed that for me quick.
-
This guy is a whack job and everyone knows it. He doesn't represent the threat of the environmental movement. The people who do that are the scientists faking data to match their hypothesis, they are the clueless politicians pushing for Cap and Trade based on the lies of those scientists, they are Al Gore and the multitudes of frenetic housewives worried about trace amounts of BPA and preaching conservation for conservations sake. This guy is a sad insane man who everyone will or has already written off as such.
I know that the environmental movement isn't bound for this sort of action, but the underling goal is to reduce human impact, and the most effective way to reach this goal is essentially anti-human life. In this instance that mentality was made incarnate.
-
I was reading about this guy on ABC news. Every time a nut job goes and does something like this, the group most philosophically polar opposite gets to point and go "see!". Unfortunately Objectivism isn't widely understood, so the best people seem to have on the ABC comment section is pro-life people trying to make this guy seem like he hates babies.
NO
This is our man. He hates humans for the reasons that make us good.
It is really a shame Ayn Rand didn't write fiction involving environmentalists so there would be a character to reference to the general public.
-
-
One thing I've been thinking about lately is where to draw the line in "mutli"-cultural aspects. For example, the multiculturalist approach is obviously evil, but what about distinct culturalism? For example, I might (for some reason) enjoy some of Sweden's cultural content, even though it I don't really see the point in making doll horses and displaying them in my house. Or Parisian culture. Or whatever example you like. So if you have a comment on 'culturalism', I'd enjoy hearing it.
The reason multi-culturalism is evil is because it claims there is no objective morality.
You draw a line between disfiguring a young girls genitals and respecting her rights as a sovereign human. One is moral, one is evil regardless of 'cultural' background.
Do not equate this to wooden shoes and sneakers.
-
I don't know. If it is, I have an answer for it.
The Police and the threat of jail time.
How are you gonna collect my fingerprints, get me to carry an ID, embed a chip in me? (the facial recognition and iris scanner tech that would be needed to solve the problem does not exist, and "magic" is not an acceptable answer)
So you are arguing that the police of a government are capable of tracking you down, arresting you, and proving you committed these crimes, but a private detective agency would be completely befuddled.
As far as collecting prints/id etc. If your scenario becomes the problem you think it would become, businesses would simply require some form of ID if you want to be served. Implants would be voluntary of course. (noncriminal types may like the expediency it could bring. etc)
-
I would use aliases. When I move into a new town, I'll say I'm Jerry. I steal a bunch of stuff, leave, and then call myself Jimmy while I'm living the high life. How exactly will anyone stop me from doing that?
In fact, forget that. Do you know how many Jake Ellison's there are in the World? How are you gonna accomplish identifying me specifically to every shop, hotel and restaurant in the World, even if I go by my real name?
Isn't this similar to arguments made by every opponent of capitalism? What is stopping you from doing that right now?
Since the solution isn't clear cut to you right now, then a solution can't exist? Don't forget we are talking about the future! Oooohh Ahhhh!
Some possible examples of solutions:
Computer chips embedded in our bodies.
Fingerprint scanners
ID's (like we use today)
Iris scanners
facial recognition software
etc.
-
Shared experiences go a long way in strengthening love.
There is podcast by Mr. Peikoff on why Ayn Rand married her husband and not someone else, and it sounded pretty intelligent.
http://peikoff.com/podcasts/2009-09-14.079.mp3
Starting at 4:20
From the index here:
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...17019&st=60
Episode 78
-
OA assumes AIs of just about any imaginable sort can be created - self-willed or not, conscious or not, sentient or not, consisting of a hive-mind or a single individual.
What I was trying to say is, Objectivism only applies to autonomous and rational beings.
The purpose if objectivism is to show human's the correct way to live life. The philosophy for hive mind AI would look very different from objectivism and be just as right for it/them. A hive mind AI that was non-violent and provided some value to an objecitivst society wouldn't be shunned I'm sure, but in no way would it, or should it attempt to be objectivist.
A non-autonomous being wouldn't be objectivist, and a non-rational being wouldn't need philosophy at all, instead would just follow instinct or programming.
If the aggregate of the 'hive mind' was autonomous is some way, then objectivism could very well still apply. Sort of like how the cells of my body don't need a philosophy, but 'I' do.
This topic isn't heavily discussed or thought about since it doesn't apply to anything.
Anyway, my point is these non-autonomous and/or non-rational beings cannot be objectivist by their nature. Them being presented as objectivist wouldn't be honest.
-
I think the original authour was making a similar difference here between the ethics of interactions between individuals (which I understand the Objectivist position on fairly well, from http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Main.html , among other sources) and the "meta"ethics of interactions between sovereign nations, for which I'm not entirely sure of the Objectivist position on.
How an objectivist treats a person depends on how much of a value that person is to them-self. Nations don't deal with nations, people deal with people. The idea of a 'nation' as its own entity is one of those "primitive subjective" tribal ideas that we have realized is irrational.
Trade between nations would work exactly the same as interactions within the objectivist society. Though the 'outside' nation may very well have barriers to trade the objecivists have no control over, the objectivist society would have no such barriers.
There is no 'agenda' of an objectivist society. Individuals having full control over their own life and pursuing their own happiness is simply what objectivism claims we should do if we want to live. I will do things that further my own goals and happiness, and you will do the same.
-
This gets into a tricky area. From what I understand of Objectivism's views of vegetarianism, as mentioned in http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil...etarianism.html , those beings who are not 'rational' do not have rights, and thus an Objectivist does not have to worry about violating their non-existent rights. In OA, one of the interpretations consistent with the evidence is that a transapient is so much smarter than an average human that they effectively undergo a mental 'phase change', and such a being might consider a human to have precisely as many rights as a human considers a cow to have - that is, none. Going by this interpretation, Objectivist ethics would primarily deal with interactions between beings of the same 'toposophic' level, with no consideration given to 'lower' beings other than how they benefit the 'higher' beings, such as as property, or left in wild reserves, or even as parts of the higher beings' minds.
Reason (or capacity for reason) is the standard. After that there is no hierarchy. I'm smarter then at least a few people on this planet, but that doesn't mean I own them.
It makes no sense to say humans have rights, but since super-humans are smarter, their rights trump humans rights and so on.
"I have the right to enslave you if I'm smarter then you" is not the same as "carrots don't have rights".
-
Jumping up a the page a bit:
Civilization: Utilitarian, pragmatic, based on objective usage of resources and objective reproduction of population numbers to allow the physical universe to be exploited for the needs of sentient beings without creating inefficiencies or inconveniences.
Civilization: Trader principle. Freedom is a primary, reduction in inefficiencies and inconveniences simply a happy side effect of the free market.
Symbolism, Art and Aesthetics: Mostly functional and austere representations of physical, biological, social, and mathematical processes. Considered austere by most bionts, although popular in some Negentropist circles for its minimalist economy of design
I'm really weak in the area of Objetivist aesthetics, but I'll try.
The purpose of art is to communicate a concept. Love, pride, power etc. Objectivists aren't emotionless machines this is trying to make it out to be. Here is a YouTube channel of an objectivist artist. http://www.youtube.com/user/ObjectivistAesthetic
Concept of Space: Space as objective exemplar of subjective states
Concept of Time: Time as objective exemplar of subjective states
Not sure what these mean. Objectivism holds that there is a reality, and it is knowable. Space is part of reality and it has laws that govern its nature, these laws are knowable. Time is part of reality and it has laws that govern its nature, these laws are knowable.
Psychological Stagnation: confusion of subjective ego with the Objective, resulting in obsessive attachment to over-stylised or too-rigid objective modelling of reality,
I understand this is meant purposefully as a fault in an objectivist society for artistic purposes. But "confusion of subjective ego with the Objective" doesn't make sense to me. I think you will have to define the terms used for me to understand what is trying to be said. As far as "resulting in obsessive attachment to over-stylised or too-rigid objective modelling of reality" goes, Objectivists strive to understand reality as it is, though, because of the nature of Ayn Rand's format, romanticizing reality could be portrayed as a 'fault' in your work of fiction.
Socio-Ecological Categories: All objectivist ai have full citizenship. Bionts and non-objectivist artificials are accepted after a long probationary period, during which their thought-processes are purged of 'false subjectivist memeticities'
Again, non-human's poorly translate into a phylosophy for man. Being 'accepted' to an objectivist society wont require the say-so of a governing body, nor mind melted to conformity. Anyone who follows the Trader Principle will function fine in an objectivist society. If someone wants to use force on others, they will find no one to trade with (nowhere to get food, to live, etc), and if they use force, they will be subject to the retributive forces of the government.
Government and Administration
Constitutional government. As I've said, the government will be all but nonexistent. Nothing resembling any government that exists today. Funding will be entirely voluntary. The only services provided are Police, Judicial system, and a protection agency for external threats.
Possibly a form of democracy or representative democracy for things that have no bearing on personal liberty.
Personal Note: I am suspicious that any government can exist without eventually growing, no matter how restrained to begin with. I think an anarcho-capitalist system can work better, but that is not objectivism. This is really a polarizing topic between people who respect Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Megastructures: Ubiquitous; megascale engineering including dyson spheres are often used to maximise productivity.
As I've stated, the economy would be laissez faire, so all structures would be privately owned, and for the most part, unique snowflakes. Imagine if you could construct the most awesome structure that ever existed using technology that allowed for about anything and everything. Now imagine everyone else doing the same thing.
-
"Metapsychology: objectivist, pragmatist, helpful (but expect memetic conversion)"
I'm actually not too familiar with the word Metapsychology, but from my quick research it seems impossible to explain this one while taking AI into consideration. In man, there is no mind/body dichotomy. Our rational being is the chemical firing of our body and brain. There is no soul that houses our 'essence'. But in AI there is a 'soul' of sorts. The program itself. So there is a Program/hardware dichotomy in AI.
Objectivists are not pragmatists. Objectivsts are principled/ethical. Pragmatism is the opposite of morality.
Helpful has no meaning. Helpful to whom?
No idea what "expect memetic conversion" means.
"Metaethics: utilitarian, missionary. Consider minds that are too subjectively orientated bring about mass destruction to the sentient life around them; they seek to avoid this by competitive expansion and biont and hyperturing conversion initiatives"
Absolutely as far off as possible.
Replace with the word "Self-interest" and read http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...bjectivism_pobs starting half way down with "The Objectivist ethics is the opposite of Kant's."
"Society: communion of transapient objectivist Minds"
Absolutely as far off as possible.
A society of Objecitivists would be individuals who deal with other individuals following the Trader Principle. Value for value and always volitionally.
More after lunch.
-
That's the existing article, which was in place before I joined the OA project; it's what will form the basis of any revisions, so is certainly a good place to start.
One note - the setting assumes the existence of 'transapients', sometimes called 'posthumans', which are capable of thinking useful thoughts that a human brain is literally incapable of thinking. (There are various levels of such transapients, the higher levels able to think in ways that the lower ones can't.) The page describing the setting's basic rules about any conflict between different levels is at http://www.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oa-page&page_id=33 , but can generally be summed up as being about as lopsided as a group of well-prepared wolves (or amoebas, depending on the levels involved) trying to fight a group of well-prepared humans. Some general notes on 'canon' for the setting are at http://orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oa-page&page=gen_canon .
Most of the page I linked is completely wrong, so reading Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff would probably the the most helpful thing for you to do.
1. Firstly, the term "Commonwealth" doesn't seem appropriate. It can mean something pretty anti-objectivist, but not necessarily.
1.a. I'm not sure what term would be best, an Objectivist society would almost certainly not be named for its form of government. An Objectivist government would have almost no power over its populace. No power to tax, to regulate, no roads, no schools, no control in any way over the currency or economy. All of those things would be private. The only things the government has is a monopoly on retribution. Things like police, judges, army, and the powers of these would be strictly limited to punishing those who infringe on the *rights of others.
1.b.*Rights for an Objectivist are strictly Negative Rights. Meaning freedom FROM someone or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
2. Orion's Arm's site has the economy listed as a Command Economy. Objectivism claims Laissez-faire capitalism as the only moral economic structure, and is the only way it would ever be.
3. It appears you have the population listed as AI. Objectivism is a philosophy developed for Man. Outside of man it would apply to autonomous beings with reason. It's possible to have AI who are autonomous beings with reason (An example of a AI society that appeared objectivist was the robot nation in The Matrix: The Animatrix, imo a very good example of an Objectivist society) but any of this hive mind stuff just doesn't work.
As far as your superhuman thinking people, I have no ability to grasp said superhuman thought, so I don't know how it would or if it would impact anything. But as long as they are autonomous and rational, it shouldn't make a difference.
I was just skimming and started to look closer and I just got to the Psyche, Art, Culture section... and that will require a line by line critique. New post for that.
Sorry for the randomness, just typing as I think.
-
I'm part of a collaborative writing project, "Orion's Arm", http://www.orionsarm.com/ , a science-fiction, transhumanist space opera universe set around 10,000 years from now. So far, one collection of short stories in the setting has been physically published, and more ideas are on the way.
One of the polities in the setting is called the "Objectivist Commonwealth", which is supposed to be based on something approximating present-day Objectivist philosophy. While I disagree with certain of the conclusions of Objectivism, I seem to /know/ more about it than any other OA member, and so I've been asked to see if I can come up with improvements for the existing write-up. But, knowing the limits of my own knowledge, I thought it might be a good idea to ask for input from some actual Objectivists.
So... is anyone here interested in helping me make sure I don't make unknowing errors about Objectivism in the new write-up?
I'd be interesting in trying. Is this link http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-topic/45cfd0563d016 a good place to start a critique or is it not an accurate summery of your thoughts on Objectivism?
-
1) The big bang theory and theory of evolution are technically fact now. I agree with them but I struggle with the fact that some higher power had no hand in them. As it pertains to the big bang my basic question is how did something (everything, I should say) come from nothing?
Not at all true. (the Big Bang theory part)
The theory of evolution has supporting evidence coming from thousands of sources, and multiple fields of science. Biology and Geology. It is complex with testable outcomes.
The Big Bang theory is not any of these things.
It simply 'fits best'. It is the most accepted theory, but I don't think a single scientist would be so insulting as the compare the two. The evidence for the Big Bang stems mostly from the Hubble effect and its implication of an expanding universe. There seems to be contrary evidence multiple places in the visible universe.
Theories are important to the scientific process, even faulty, flawed or incomplete ones as a starting place to test and compare.
I have noticed a growing trend in Theists using cosmology, and especially quantum mechanics as support for a higher power. Just as thousands of years ago they used weather, flight, and fire.
Imagine the worshipers of Pele the fire god. The natives of Hawaii had no way of understanding plate tectonics. It requires data from tools they were at best hundreds of years from having, and a desire to know the truth, which as far as they were concerned they already did.
You are falling under the same trap man has for its existence. If it's not explainable, God did it.
-
There's nothing noble about this guy. If he had taken a sort of moral stand, it would have been one thing. But he vilifies Capitalism alongside Communism. He's the kind of person who would commit suicide after hearing John Galt, not Cheryl Taggart. Also, he took his rage out on people not responsible. Clearly, an irrational man.
Is he vilifying communism? First read I thought the same thing, but I read an article by I believe the Washington Post, and the liberal writer of the article got the impression that he was giving a 'nod' to communism.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...ar_anti-go.html
To an Objectivist reading "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." is an attack, but to a sympathizer it isn't.
-
There were two morally anti-Objecitivst actions performed by Cuddy during the course of the episode.
Firstly, the lawsuit brought on by the man who had cut off his finger was legitimate. The finger was re-attached even though he explicitly asked for it not to be. He cannot be charged for a service he did not want and did his best to avoid. The doctor knowingly went against the patients orders and could be criminally liable. (both morally and legally)
As much as I would like a plasma TV, if Best Buy broke into my home and installed one without my consent I would be under no obligation to pay for it.
She should have understood this and settled, the man would have been perfectly happy paying for the services he DID ask for, and he said as much.
Secondly, she attempted to blackmail the CEO of the insurance company she was in negotiations with. Her ammunition was to be his wealth which we can assume he obtained by being competent, or even good at his job. This reminds me of Rearden's breakthrough in understanding the nature of his enemy in Atlas. They use his virtues as tools of blackmail.
It is possible that the CEO did not make his money honestly, but since no evidence was presented, I can only guess that the audience is to take it as a given that mega-wealth (owning your own jet etc.) is a moral crime in itself.
Otherwise another enjoyable episode of one of my favorite shows.
Breaking Bad
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
I felt like saying the same thing yesterday, but saw you were catching up and didn't want to ruin anything. Holy crap.