Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dormin111

Regulars
  • Posts

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Dormin111

  1. From the Lexicon: "Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values." "The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition." And the most important one: "Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important . . . ." I don't see any adequate reason as to why sex is such a revered task that can never be done casually. To me, that is the equivilent to saying, "it is immoral to eat at MacDonald's when you could be eating filet mignon at a fancy restaurant." While of course I would prefer to always eat filet mignon, maybe some times I cannot afford it, or the restaurant is far away, or I just want something convienent.
  2. I am just curious as to what individuals who are more experienced with Objectivism than I would have to say on the subject. One criticism that I have always had of Rand was her views on sex, which I have seen Hotu Mantua summarize very well. I believe Rand arbitrarily declared sex to be more than just a physical activity when it is no such thing. I do not see anything wrong with promiscuity, nor anything immoral about prostitution as long as the activites are indulged in with proper moderation (ie. one should not forsake a meaningful relationship to spend more time with prostitutes). I have not yet come to a full conclusion on whether or not drunkeness and getting high should be considered immoral. It seems to be in bad taste for an individual to seek pleasure by removing their ability to think and act as a coherent self. While I can see the appeal of getting tipsy, to actively seek drunkeness is far too similar to a chemically induced "blank-out" to make me feel comfortable. To be fair, I am not entirely certain on Rand's views on this subject, though I recall hearing that she and others in her circle drank regularly. "Since you are interested in political philosophy, I will mention also that although there is some room for interpretation of Rand on the point, she may have made the error of assuming that individuals come to the state with their property rights in land (in the economic sense) already perfected, like their rights in their person." Would you mind elaborating on what you mean here? I will read the links but I would like to take a stab at it alone first.
  3. I wasn't aware that there was much of a discrepency, but I suppose I am looking for disagreements with Rand's derivative views.
  4. There are plenty of fine scholars of Objectivism on here and I am hoping to hear of some enlightened criticsms some of them may have of Ayn Ran'd explicit philosophical teachings. Off the top of my head: - Johnathan13 believes Rand's views on aesthetics are contradictory. - Hotu Matua believes Rand's views on sex were mystical - Nearly everyone believes Rand's views on homosexuality were outdated.
  5. I call this an "argument from anamoly." A theoretically, physically possible event which is so unlikely that it is not worth thinking about and therefore does not constitute a valid argument.
  6. If you take the question from the other side, ask, "how does the state know what price to charge?" If they charge too low of a price then this disincentivizes the production of more energy as energy companies will be woried about being hijacked by the state and losing their sizeable investment. If prices are too high then the state is using its power to rob people for corporate interests (what generally happens). And of course, the state cannot actually determine what the "right" price is because of the knowlege problem.
  7. This debate has already occurred. I found his views bizarre and difficult to understand so I figured I would ask this board for clarification. I apologize if this offends your sensibilities.
  8. Another bit from the same author: "I'm saying that "concepts" (signified) are the only thing whose existence can be shared, and that they therefore form the only possibly category of inquiry and meaning. I'm looking at a tree right now, the only way you can possibly understand that I am doing that is because the word "tree" has value. What I am saying though, which you seem to have some problem with, is that that this value only exists to the extent that it can be shared. If you didn't understand the word "tree" in the same way I did, it doesn't matter how many times I said I was looking at a tree, I could not demonstrate that to you without the language to do so. It doesn't matter how many words you pile on. You cannot demonstrate that trees are a natural and stable category without referencing the way they are collated under the category "tree". Without that category, how would you group trees as similar? It's not like trees are all the same. It's not like they share no characteristics with anything else. It's not like there's no point at which the boundaries of the tree arbitrarily end and something else begins. If language is merely describing objects (incidentally, since we're talking about things which are experienced - I can only see a tree because I have eyes - "phenomena" is correct, but I'll concede if it will help you understand) in the real world, then why is every difference between objects not reflected in the terminology? Why is every similarity not reflected in the terminology? The answer is patently obvious, because we're not dealing with "real" objects in language, we're dealing with signified objects, or "concepts", as you call them, and the organization of those concepts is arbitrary. The only system of conveying meaning. The system you're trying to use now to prove otherwise, is already arbitrary."
  9. From another poster on another forum: "Let me break this down and try to make it very, very simple. No "postmodernist" (using your absurd definition) even cares about truth, not because the truth does not "exist" but because it's existence cannot be demonstrated. That's why these arguments don't even deserve a response. We aren't engaging with "truth" in having this discussion, we're engaging with language. Language is the only genuinely collective human process. Your "observation" is not a shared process, your "reality" is not a shared process. The "reality" of anything you see or think is meaningless until it can be demonstrated through language. The only actual evidence I have for your experience, for your "reality", is what you say, and more importantly the way in which what you say can be interpolated and shared. The existence or otherwise of an actual "reality" behind what you're saying is meaningless if the only measure we have of it is a collection of symbols. This is something which anyone willing to use the term "postmodernism" should already understand. It doesn't matter whether or not you are right, we are not arguing whether or not something is true, we are arguing how we know it is true. If you genuinely believe that reality precedes language and thus experiences can have an objective value, then demonstrate your "reality" without using language. I'll wait." I have heard a little bit about this postmodern concept of "everything is just symbols so we don't know reality" but I am having a difficult time grasping the concept. I'm pretty sure Noam Chompsky is big proponent of it. Can someone explain this "linguistic" metaphysics in comprehensive terms?
  10. Are surprise parties irrational?
  11. By "empricial economics" I mean what Rothbard called "positivism" or the application of hard science methodology to economics.
  12. Interesting examination. I think it is worth mentioning that empirical economics tends to breed a quasi-psychic hubris in its most devoted practitioners that leads them to believe they can use the government to do good for the world because their models are "scientifically proven." In you opinion, is there any valid macroeconomic use for empircal economics or does its nature make it only useful for the microeconomic scale?
  13. Does anyone have any feelings on the Mass Effect series? I believe they are fantastic games and there are plenty of philosophical issues to discuss but I am afraid that there is too much context involved to inform anyone who has not alredy played the games. So I will state a few of the interesting issues in the series as I would love to hear some opinions on them if anyone is so inclined: SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1. Was the genophage a morally permissible response to the Krogan? Yes. The Krogan are an entire civilization of brutish thugs who threatened to exterminate the civilized Turians and Salarians. In time I believe it might be permissible to cure the genophage if the Krogans could civilize. 2. Should all alien races in possesion of free will be treated as moral equals? I am unsure. The humans, Salarians, Turians, Asari, Volus, Hanar, Elcor, Drell, Geth, and Quarians all appear to be intelligent and civilized. However, to varying degrees, the Rachni, Krogan, Vorcha, Reapers, and Batarians have acted at best like savages and at worst like sub-beings. 3. Should the Geth be treated as concious beings? Should Shepard have re-written their genetic code or destroyed the Geth Heretics? Yes, the geth demonstrate free will though it is unclear at what level their conciousness exists (are they one will and the individuals are the equivilent of cells?). I do believe the brain washing was morally proper because the heretics were essentially brain damaged. 4. What do you think of Cerberus? They are the equivilient to modern day racial nationalists. 5. What do you think of the Illusive Man? I believe his goals are actually rather admirable. His speech in the finale of Mass Effect 3 (whether real or imagined) was actually somewhat inspiring in that he wanted to give humanity another technological gain akin to the mass effect relays by enslaving the reapers. 6. What do you think of the portrayal of Illium as a capatalistic paradise? Rife with the usual anti-capitalist straw men. 7. Which character most exemplifies Objecitivsm (not including your Shepard)? Mordin Solus. Brilliant scientist, loves life, always works towards what he believes in. Thats all I can think of for now.
  14. No conclusion at the moment. I was hoping to continue it eventually by going into Austria, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Japan but have not gotten around to it yet.
  15. You specifically stated the the government should use force to protect rights around the world, even if the affected parties are not American. If Kony is a special circumstance, then what should the US gov do, if anything?
  16. Do I really have to spell it out? He comands an army partially made up of children in the middle of Africa. He does not have anything close to the resources necesary to launch an assault on any place within the United States. Even if he did have the resources, he would have to be an idiot to risk such an operation as success would probably result in his entire operation being carpet bombed. First stop Uganda. Second stop, the other 90% of Africa controlled by oppressive warlords. Third stop, Burma. Fourth stop, the Middle East. Fifth stop, North Korea... If that scenario is absurd, then please explain why the US government should do something about Kony but not one of the other billion dictators and warlords in the world? You claim that you do not want to go around the world liberating people, yet this is exactly what you suggest.
  17. Assuming you live within US borders, you should get the state involved, though the idea of a 2-bit warlord in Uganda launching an attack on the United States is completely absurd. Kony does not live within the US, will likely never step foot in the US, and will probably not harm and US civilians. I see no reason why hiring mercanaries to fight outside the country should be illegal as long as it is directed against a "looter" government or organization.
  18. I agree, but I do not see how intervening in this situation would benefit the United States in anyway. THe purpose of military action is self-defense, and Joseph Cony has not done any thing to threaten the United States.
  19. It is not the US government's duty to sacrifice individuals or their possesions to save outsiders. If you feel strongly about the issue, feel free to hire mercanaries to deal with it.
  20. The article claims, "according to a recent poll," that one third of Americans have read Atlas Shrugged. I wish. EDIT: One thing I find very interesting about virulent Rand attackers like the author of this article is that they always VASTLY overestimate her actualy influence. Aside from saying that a third of Americans have read one of the longest novels ever written, the author claims that she is the back bone of the the Republican Party, is the basis for the Tea Party, was carried on by Alan Greenspan (the author litterally calls him her "most devoted member") is heavily supported by Limbaugh, Beck, and Santelli, and is the basis for the last thirty years of American political and economic life. Better yet, the author calims that Greenspan followed Rand's philosophy "to the letter" by cutting taxes on the rich, eliminating regulation, and refusing to enforce laws on predatory lending. And all from his position as the head of the FEDERAL RESERVE!!! I wasn't aware that Greenspan declared himself king for a few years and took over the entire legislative and executive branches.
  21. Here is a pdf of Rothbard's book: http://mises.org/Rothbard/AGD.pdf I probably should have written "social darwinists."
  22. For the definitions I basically made them up to fit the time period. I have always heard that a recession is a stagnant economy and a depression is a contracting economy, but I felt that was too simplistic. You are right about the modification being due to high growth rates, especially when relating to a country like the US which was averaging in the 9-10% GDP per year range. For that, 1% growth is pretty weak. They did not keep track of quarters or really GDP at all back then. All of this data was assembled in the 1990's, mostly by economist Angus Maddison who had an absurd amount of time on his hands and litterally recorded estimates of GDP for every year from 1870 to 1990 for every country I mentioned. The reason I didn't dive as much into Austria or Russia in the paper (besides time constraints) was because he had no numbers on them. From what I understand, he based the data off of markers from local businesses and publications which recorded industrial output, trade levels, etc. Generally, the exact numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, but I believe the general thrust of each stat is reliable (ie. negative or positive growth at varying levels). That being said, the US, Germany, and Britain tended to have the best data so their numbers should be thought of as the most accurate. In this paper I do not dive into the Great Depression since it falls outside of the time line, but I do have the GDP statstics for them. If you want a free-market analysis of the GD, I recommend Murray Rothbard's book titled Great Depression.
  23. It was an independent study project. I basically just asked a professor I liked to guide my research on a topic of my choosing. After getting it approved by the registrar, I was free to tackle the project any way I pleased as long as I met with the professor once per week.
  24. Sent from [email protected]. It might be a tad unpolished since it is a very late stage rough draft (only one on this computer). The first half after the introduction deals with a few myths of capitalism and the second half is the country-by-country analysis. I am a second year and I wrote this last year. I find no problem writing a lot as long as I am interested in the topic. EDIT: Also going to send a slightly more polished copy in Open Office Format since there were a few formatting mishaps in the copy I sent to you.
  25. I am a college student at the University fo Chicago who wrote an extensive (30,000 word) paper on just this topic. I compared the economies of Britain, Germany, Itlay, France, and to a lesser degree, the US and Japan according to my qualitative evaluation of their level of economic freedom during the late industrial revolution (1870-1913). I found that there is doubtlessly a correlation between economic freedom and relative economic success during the time period as can be seen by GDP, population, and production growth figures. I can email you a copy of my paper if you'd like.
×
×
  • Create New...