Cmac19
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cmac19
-
-
Yes. Our nature provide us with the faculty to be rational, purposeful, and self-reliant. But this is just a faculty, a capacity. We still have to choose to be rational, purposeful and selfish. and keep being that way. We need to choose to develop our faculties.
I think this may be the most important thing to clear up the issue of apparent circularity. it is not so much that you need to practice reason in order to obtain reason, but that you need to practice it in order to be considered as possessing the virtue of rationality. the value that is reason is merely a constant and un-compromised state of practicing the virtue of rationality
-
I actually heard an interesting criticism of objectivism based on a similar argument about determinism. The argument went:
1) breakthroughs in neuroscience have allowed unprecedented access into the workings of the brain
2) one of the results of this access is a measurement of electrical current in certain brain centres and how they relate to words or actions
3) one of the results of this measurement is an ability to read certain patterns in the brain and essentially know what someone is going to do even before they know that they are going to do it
4) therefore all of our words and actions could be predicated by unknown conditions within our brains that we have no conscious control over
5) therefore we have no free will.
now i am not an expert in neuroscience so i have no idea if the premises that this argument is based on are really true but the guy who made the argument is pretty credible and generally doesnt make arguments based on fantasy. assuming that it is possible for scientists to know what we are going to do before we do it, does this in fact lead one to logically conclude that our will is not free?
-
Well, yeah.
And even if Rockefeller did become a monopoly, Oil and kerosene would only be good for so much until they found an alternative fuel
Which we probably would have if everyone put the same energy they did to "break" up trusts.
exactly. the whole idea of someone having a monopoly on a natural resource or product is ridiculous in a capitalist system. the competition would merely devise a new method of providing the same service and undercut the company that once had a monopoly... the market can solve its own problems, it is only government that cause disasters
-
You're forgetting that plenty of people don't value their own life. What happens to your intrinsic value theory in their case?
simply because people choose not to recognize the value does not prove that it does not exist. plenty of people believe that the law of identity is false and logic is an irrelevant form of knowledge.. that doesnt change the axiomatic nature of either.
It doesn't supersede it. To plenty of people my life is not valuable at all, and I'm fine with that. In fact, I prefer it that way.you still havent answered my question of how objective rights are developed out of a life who's value is subjective
-
When Ayn Rand differentiated her view on value from intrinsic value theory, she clearly stated that she was defining the idea of intrinsic value as "possessing value regardless of the purposes and goals of the valuators."
So is your argument then that life's value is dependent upon any individuals desire to value it? if that is the case then how does your decision to value your own life super-cede any other persons decision that your life is not valuable at all? if the value of life is conditional and subjective then how does the concept of objective rights evolve out of the nature of the value of life?
-
I just don't see the point, they are cheap, they are tacky and they are juvenile.
then don't get one.. your opinion is not really a necessary sanction for others to choose to get them.. this is a matter of personal preference
and so there is very little room for objective logical argumentation, and so i will not even ask for one -
I don't know about that. If you're saying that any time there is a foregone opportunity in me making a choice then it can no longer be morally evaluated, I would disagree. If I choose not to save someone I care about who is choking because I would have to forego some small thing, that would still be immoral.
No that is not what i was saying at all, i agree that allowing someone you care about to die in order to achieve some insignificant gain would still be immoral.
I agree that in such a situation, he must choose which is more important. However, once he figures out which is more valuable to him, he must pursue that value or commit a moral breach. The opposite argument, that whenever there are both costs and benefits you can't blame the actor for choosing either course, quickly breaks down into the conclusion that almost no choices can be morally evaluated, because there are always costs to each course.my point here was merely that in the case of refusing to help someone that one does not value, in order to keep something or achieve something that one DOES value would not be immoral.. to do the opposite would of course be immoral.. i am merely making a claim about the nature of choosing a lesser value over a greater one.. i apologize for any confusing wording.
-
my guess, and ironically my G.O.O.D secondary location, would be dubai
-
also i think an operationalized definition of propositions for the purpose of applying these concepts would be very helpful.
-
I would argue that to some degree a stranger's opinion of you could serve as a truly third-party assessment of your personality. It can indeed be a useful thing to know what strangers think of you because their opinions of you are completely untainted by emotion, familiarity, or knowledge of determinist influences such as birthplace,childhood upbringing, etc. Of course, a stranger's evaluation of you must be taken with a grain of salt, and recognized as simply an assessment of your first impressions, but with the right amount of sound judgment on your own part, a stranger's first-minute opinion can be a useful tool for gauging the way you see yourself versus the way you might really be.
While I agree that strangers opinions of you can be a useful tool i do not think that you should think that the way "you see yourself" is somehow less valid then how a stranger would judge you on a first impression. you may be able to gauge the way others will generally view you, but that may be totally irrelevant to "how you really are"
-
I have never really been convinced by the argument that very successful businessmen such as the rockefellers and the morgans were ever attempting to develop monopolies. they had not gained their status through government aid and they knew that they did not need government aid to continue to outdo their competition. however, if it is true that these powerful businessmen chose to switch the focus of their aims from honest means of money-making to an attempt at a monopoly then they would no longer be an example of true capitalism anyways. i agree with the argument that a monopoly can only be created through the use of government force... if you need a contemporary example of companies trying to achieve a monopoly just look at the ford and GM bailouts.. classic example
-
Objectivist ethics centres around the total and correct understanding of the facts of reality. as long as modern scientists are still loyal to the truth and not merely acting on the payroll of a biased loan granter then no objectivist would have any reason to disagree with their logical conclusions. the problems arise when scientists are found to have faulty premises or invalid logical connections.
-
Interesting take on love... although I agree that self love is a very important part of romantic love I do not think that love in its entirety is merely a reflection of our self love. I would say that you would love someone because they possess virtues, not necessarily simply because they possess features similar to yours. although it is likely that (especially in objectivist cases) people will attempt to achieve virtues in their own lives and therefore will look for those same virtues in others I believe the focus should be on their achievement of virtue.. which you admire. that's merely my 2 cents though.
-
It wasn't intended to be an explanation of the law of identity. I thought it was the best way of describing the essence of Objectivism while at the same time contrasting it with the "definition" of atheism that was given. The law of identity is obviously not equivalent to "the entirety" of Objectivism, but, as Peikoff put it, Objectivism is "the primacy of existence come to a full, systematic expression in Western thought for the first time." In other words, it is the application of the law identity on a massive scale.
ahh i understand, apologies for the criticism.
-
Alright thanks for the info.. I will definitely look into it
-
Thank you, but what is your point? What are you all expecting to achieve with this? I could come up with thousands of defamatory articles against Ayn Rand. What makes this one in particular any different from the others? Why do you even care about them?
I think some people just alleviate their emotions in different ways than you do. some people can just ignore them or rationalize them, some people (myself included) do physical activities or violent sports to alleviate pent up frustration, and some people post on forums with like minded people in order to alleviate their anger.. there's nothing wrong with any way of alleviating anger and long as it is not self destructive or immoral. I say let people do what makes them feel better, and if you disapprove, simply dont participate
-
Preatorian Guards protected the Roman emperors after the republic was discarded. Purple was the color of royalty in Europe after Rome fell in emulation of the emperors. Purple is the color of Barney.
ahh very true, my mistake. your dislike of purple aside i still think it looks good, gold on black would also look good, although since you've already made the connection to the steelers (im sure there are a million other groups or teams that use black and gold) it is likely that people will confuse its affiliation
-
On the contrary, when you say it has value "in itself" you are separating that value from the valuator. These two sentences contradict each other.
This again contradicts the idea that life has value "in itself", and again demonstrates a separation between the value and the valuator.
I disagree. I think, and if im wrong then please correct me Leonid, that life has intrinsic value specifically BECAUSE you cannot separate the value and the valuator. in this way the value of life becomes axiomatic, a being without the value being held would have no ability to judge it as valuable or not, because it would have no life.
-
Oh yes, I believe you. Objectivism has its own take on induction which is an improvement on the conventional wisdom, resolving the "problem of induction". Altruism is no good as an ethical theory either.
ah i see, i guess i've yet to read the objectivist understanding of induction.. which book/essay does it appear in. i'll have to read it and at least understand it in order to stop looking like an idiot lol
also, i understand that not every theory which has been proposed has been the correct one, however i was not taught inductive reasoning in a philosophy class, merely in a logic class, so i took the professors words at face value... although i suppose it's entirely possible for him to be incorrect i wouldnt normally contradict a math teacher on the nature of advanced functions lol still an answer to the problem of induction would certainly be welcome
-
Unfortunately, it is the justice statists seek to replace (the justice of being a billionaire, if you have provided millions with products they love and are willing to buy, etc., and the justice of not being hired as a bank manager, if your personal debt is through the roof, or the justice of not getting to keep your house if you can't pay your mortgage, etc.).
There is no point in fighting only a political battle, and conceding morality to the altruists. Freedom is a meaningless proposition to altruists. In altruism no one deserves anything, let alone freedom. At best, they'll allow as much freedom as they see necessary for the "common good".
I agree entirely, however, in the interest of time in some cases, it is only prudent to discuss politics without getting into the ethical root of the issue. I would never "concede" morality to any altruist and if, during the debate, ethics is brought up i would certainly claim that social justice is not only a misnomer, but is immoral as well. my point was merely that sometimes i do not have time to do this
-
Intrinsic value doesn't mean value "at all times, to all people, for all purposes;” it only means value in itself.
I agree, there seems to be some misuse of the term "intrinsic" in this thread. in these cases (all places, all times, all people) i believe the term that should be used is "universal" not "intrinsic"
-
That's true to the extent that your values are rational. A purely emotional "I don't value X therefore I can reject X" does not render an objectively immoral decision moral.
Correct, sorry i should have included that stipulation in my statement.
-
No, induction is totally valid and required before there can be any deduction. If valid induction was not possible there would not be any valid deduction.
And contrary to what you have been taught, probability has nothing to do with induction.
im still not really convinced, i have looked into other sources and re-looked into my text and, again perhaps you're using an understanding of the term induction which i do not know, but the definition of "inductive reasoning" that i find anywhere i look is "a type of reasoning that involves moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion." but it also goes on to state that "The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth."
-
Here you go:
Notes on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" Lecture 1
Not a transcript. These notes paraphrase the speaker's points and are not accurate quotes unless in quote tags. {Curly brackets denote my comments}
Generalization - The inference of some member of a class to all. The inference moves from
from the observed to the unobserved
from the past to the future
from here to everywhere
Generalizing is the essence of human cognition and distinguishing feature of man from the animal.
Induction is the primary process of gaining knowledge that goes beyond perception. Deduction also moves beyond perception but presupposes premises; therefore is not primary.
Definition of Generalization - a proposition that ascribes a characteristic to every member of an unlimited class, however a member is placed in time and space. Format: "All S is P"
'unlimited' is in the definition to rule out simple inventory as an induction. Example: Inspecting every marble in a bag of marbles, seeing they are all red, then stating "All the marble in this bag are red" is not an induction despite the universal format. {this is not an open-ended universal}
side note - metaphysical axioms are not inductive generalizations. 'A is A' is not 'All S is P'.
Generalizations are made possible by man's conceptual faculty. S and P are concepts. {Definition of concept from the Lexicon}
Concepts are tools of knowledge, file-folders. They are not the claims to knowledge, they organize it and integrate it. Higher level concepts can presuppose knowledge but themselves state nothing.
'Table' is not true or false but valid or invalid.
'All S is P' is true or false and belongs in the S file-folder
Rand formulated rules for concept formation.
Aristotle formulated the rules of deduction.
This course formulates the rules for induction.
Statement of the "Problem of Induction"
Man is neither omniscient nor infallible. His generalizations are therefore not automatically correct. Thus the question: How can man know, across the whole scale of time and space, facts which he does not and can never perceive?"
Importance: false generalizations are contradictions in thought and a clash with reality in action
Motivational statement for students of philosophy: Except for a few axioms all the crucial principles of philosophy are reached and validated by induction.
So induction is merely a process by which people make generalizations that, while probably true, cannot realistically be validated in the same way that inductive logic can?
Is smuggling goods to prisoners moral or ethical?
in Ethics
Posted
also there is the issue of the degradation of the prison system and the lack of respect for the justice system that usually result from the spread of illegal activities that people on the "right side" of the law practice. as well as it not truly being in the guards self interest, it is also just a really destructive practice in general. if you value the rule of law then yes it would immoral