y_feldblum
-
Posts
1372 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by y_feldblum
-
-
Carl,
I'd like to discuss the possibility of hot-pink elephants with you, specifically whether or not the role of non-pink elephants as circus attractions will diminish and whether or not the hot-pink ones will on average live as long.
I was planning to discuss it here, but moderator RadCap only wants the forum to be used for rational ideas and the discussion thereof in a logical manner. I'd hate to see him brand my very exciting, even fantastical, daydream as absurd nonsense.
Other people calling it a flight of fancy can do no good, so far as I see. Obviously, the idea is a very real possibility and I can see it on the horizon of today's science.
Tell me what you think.
-
Two hundred years ago, what ought the government have done re somebody who invented a machine gun?
-
The point of this forum is not to discuss any flights of fancy one might dream up, such as your idea. From what I gather, it is to discuss ideas which (ultimately) have a bearing on how, as men, we ought to act.
-
Also, perhaps you meant Critique this... or Criticize this...
-
I (including all the capital I own) just invented and patented a device that can synthesize things faster than your synthesizer - and, it requires less energy to operate. Plus, I just introduced a completely new kind of product, something which no-one has ever specifically thought of wanting before.
There is no post-money system.
What is the answer to my question?
-
Let's try some other examples, set two hundred years ago.
What if something were invented that could cheaply, speedily, and efficiently till, sow, and harvest - replacing costly, slow, and wasteful human labor?
What if something were invented that could cheaply, speedily, and efficiently spin, sew, and otherwise create textiles - replacing costly, slow, and wasteful human labor?
What if something were invented that could cheeply, speedily, and efficiently acquire the precursors for and manufacture all kinds of petroleum - replacing costly, slow, and wasteful human labor?
With machines having replaced human producers in all these areas, you would think there is no more need for human producers, that the productivity of men would drop to zero.
Yet the opposite has occured. Why? The answer to this question is the answer to yours.
-
What does necessary mean? Certainly not survival need, since we took care of that when we invented hunting spears and learned how to shape our hands into a cup. Certainly not want, since that is insatiable. Certainly not anything in between, since that is arbitrary.
What if everything were effortless?
What if lunch were free?
What if I had a unicorn?
There are no unicorns.
There is no free lunch.
Fill in the blank: ________________.
-
It must be from one's own life qua man as the standard.
Life as such is a value - to the one that values it. Live as such is the good, to the one that lives. Eg, one can value his wife's [or husband's] life, a friend's life, his pet's life, etc. - since they all enhance his own life. I assume meat enhances your life more than a warm fuzzy feeling.
Premises 1 and 3 are false.
Premise 1 - "Better" by what standard? for whom? and in what way? It is intrinsicism. Premise 3 - a rational man takes reasonable steps to make his own life better.
-
The premise of the argument is false.
The argument is, in syllogistic form -
Premise: Government maintenance of society enables accumulation of wealth.
Premise: One who is wealthy by law must return some of his wealth to those entities which enabled his accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: One who is wealthy by law must return some of his wealth to the government.
However -
Premise: The law is (at least one aspect of) government maintenance of society.
Premise: The law impedes accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: Government maintenance of society impedes - not enables - accumulation of wealth.
Premise 2 of the above argument follows from -
Premise: The law mandates the sacrifice of wealth.
Premise: The sacrifice of wealth impedes the accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: The law impedes accumulation of wealth.
The conclusion of argument 2 contradicts premise 1 of argument 1 and renders it false - if you find a contradiction, check your premises. The conclusion of argument 1 therefore doesn't follow from the argument. Without any further information, there is no reason to assume it is true.
Though this argument is not too concise, it does show how the argument logically contradicts reality and as such makes no sense.
-
This problem is known as Xeno's Paradox.
The philosophical answer is: you're context-dropping.
The simple answer is, to go from A to B at velocity V one would require time T = (B - A) / T.
One goes halfway to B and takes duration T/2 doing so.
One then goes half the remaining distance, taking T/4 doing so.
One then goes half the remaining distance, taking T/8 doing so.
Etc.
Keep in mind that the time for each leg of the journey keeps changing.
So, one travels the entire distance, taking T/2 + T/4 + T/8 + .... I will prove that the sum of the infinite series here is T.
Sum = T( 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... )
2*Sum = T( 2/2 + 2/4 + 2/8 + 2/16 + ... )
= T( 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... )
2*Sum - Sum = Sum = T*1 + (T*1/2 - T*1/2) + (T*1/4 - T*1/4) + (T*1/8 - T*1/8) + ... = T
One can do the same thing switching time and distance.
"Spacetime" has absolutely nothing to do with Xeno's Paradox or infinite series. Spacetime is a kind of non-Euclidean geometry.
-
Glad to be of service, however brusque it might be.
-
It would also be a property-rights violation if you didn't own the field or the gun. Also, what do you think of the sport of hunting?
The only defense of vegetarianism I find palatable is: every defense there is excluding the one about cruelty. Meaning, if you think it's healthier, more energizing, tastier, or any of those 'ers that make your life better - great reason for one to be a vegetarian. However, trying to make the lives of cows better by sacrificing one's own pleasure - horrible reason and unethical besides.
Vegetarianism is ethical unless it's practiced out of altruism - for cows.
Additional: another immoral defense is "we could grow more food in less space if we only ate vegetables" - or any such defense that requires a "group effort". But this defense is, of course, altruism (just not for cows).
-
Inheriting a house and selling it is funny?!
Emotional whim has no place in ethical judgment. "There is something funny about ..." is meaningless emotional whim; "... is wrong, since it contradicts principle X" is a useful statement based on principle. This is exactly the same point as last time around, and I must ask why you persist in using emotion and blank-out in place of reason regarding ethical judgments.
What specifically is funny about this action, what does funny mean in this context, and why and on what principles is it funny? If you feel inclined to answer, feel free to use something resembling a chain of logic.
-
Why did you repeat the question you started the thread with?
Time to change your value system and emotional responses to reflect the new knowledge you may have gained from this thread (that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with selling one's organs); may have because you seem to ignore it.
"Somehow I feel it is bad" says absolutely nothing, whereas "Based on these principles I think it is bad" is a meaningful statement. Do you still think there is something wrong with selling one's organs, or do you only feel things with no connection to reality?
-
... regarding its war for survival, as opposed to its (disappearing) collectivist trend.
Capitalism Magazine partner site - Israel Is Moral.
-
Your answer doesn't answer the question at all. Firstly, it is a red herring: we are discussing ethical government action. Secondly, it's not the grounds I was looking for. Thirdly, who is negotiating? who restores reason? who presumes? who is about to shoot whom? why does such a presumption effectively block this shooting?
Answer the question. Government should trample the rights of all people who are not fully or at all (pick one) using reason to guide their actions (as judged by whom?) because ... ?
Or don't, because this discussion is becoming a waste of time. I want it based on principles, whereas you want it based on pragmatism and practicality.
-
There is nothing about selling organs that is good in and of itself. Neither is there anything about trading organs for another value that is good in and of itself.
Enhancement of one's own life as a rational being is good - because that's just the Objectivist definition of good. Selling organs or trading them where doing so enhances one's life as a rational being is good by definition.
-
What ought government do regarding a sleepwalker with a chainsaw?
Either wake them up or lock them up.
On what philosophical grounds? Whom have they injured and whose rights have they violated? Again, "more likely" versus "less likely" is not a philosophical principle. Now answer the question.
you most certainly do disagree with my contention above regarding government.
You are gonna have to prove that.
"Lock them up" proves it.
-
What values does one gain from selling organs??? Just money???
Firstly, think ... what does this tell you about my choice of the word value over the word money? In fact, money is only a placeholder for potential value, not a thing in itself. It is a means of facilitating the exchange of values, nothing more. Secondly, think ... "i.e." means "that is", or "that means": in order to find out what I meant by the first clause, see the second clause.
-
Perhaps Poohat's original post was, essentially: integrate first - don't derive - specifically here the concepts relating to spacetime. However, the nature of spacetime belongs to the field of study which underlies physics: metaphysics, a branch of philosophy. Certainly, metaphysics cannot be derived in a vacuum; it must be based on observation and abstraction.
A little off topic for here, but necessary all the same. What exactly do the terms epistemology, meta-epistemology, psycho-epistemology, and related terms mean, and what are the differences between them? What are the fundamental Objectivist principles regarding each?
The original subject of this thread is, in fact, Objectivism - specifically, what it considers to be the nature of space and time. Group effort is largely a foreign concept here. The best way to solve a problem is not to discuss, but to inquire (see previous off-topic paragraph). Infinite is spelled as I spell it here. I prefer to write spacetime without the dash, as here; it leaves the reader with more of the impression of their inseparability. It would be hard to measure things without forms of measurement.
The geometry of our universe is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold having 3,1 dimensions: two sets of dimensions where within each set the axes rotate spherically around each other and where between sets the axes rotate hyperbolically into each other. The first set of three dimensions is spatial and the second set of one dimension is temporal.
-
Not intrinsically!
See John Galt on committing suicide - it was perfectly moral when he threatened to do it, but keep in mind the specific context.
If the value of what you could gain selling your organ outweighs the value you could gain keeping it, then it is moral to sell it; if not, not. Ie, if you can trade an organ for something that enhances your life more than that organ does, it's worth it (both by the definition of the word, and philosophically).
-
What ought government do regarding a sleepwalker with a chainsaw?
What differentiates "might" from "likely to"? If it's any sort of ratio, it's arbitrary and not useful at all philosophically, and you most certainly do disagree with my contention above regarding government.
-
«If the person who is drowning is your wife, you can by objectivist ethics willing risk your own life for her sake. Because you value your wife higher than yourself.»
Even more so - you can knowingly give up your life for her sake.
-
Epistemologically (I dunno if I'm using the term right...), the concept similar is based on the concept different; it is an abstraction away of differences. Two dogs are similar: abstract away the difference in color. If we don't abstract away differences, we are left with two entities, one of which is white and vicious and the other of which is grey and vicious. (If you don't like vicious dogs - one of them is white and sweet, while the other is grey and sweet.)
Future Economy
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted · Edited by y_feldblum
A thought experiment more resembles ... I know Y to be the case. What necessarily follows?
edit ( from="though" , to="thought" , reason=spelling )