Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tomer Ravid

Regulars
  • Posts

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Tomer Ravid

  1. Sound is about sensory information. Without animals, the unconscious existence is not to ``hear`` anything. But, for sure, the waves, among with their own entire attributial code as a whole, exist objectively and independently of man`s faith, emotion, or hope. Existence is a primacy over each other axiom. Without existence as an absolute, how can one`s `spirit` or his `beliefs` ever exist?
  2. Hi Tomer,

    I just noticed you live in Rehovot, where my aunt lives.

    Binyamin- something - street.

    When I was over there I stayed with her for a month and got familiar with Rehovot.

    Anyway, best of luck.

    Tony

  3. I do not accept lots of what some people said here. Though you shall not be a hero by means of the will to be the exact second-handered version of Ayn Rand or of Howard Roark, which is a fake and contradictory (and therefore second-handered), nor O`ism will teach you how to achieve virtues completely, and especially in regard of art but you can certainly turn your sense-of-life into an absolutely more HEROIC one. I have done it, and I can swear I do not find any opinion of strangers which does not touch my moral future directly valuable, due to the fact I am totally FOCUSED in any action I pick to perform. I do not act accordingly with my automatic whims anymore, and even if I did feel something because I was considered a ``nerd`` by the sexy-girl of my class, all I can remember on this period is boredom. The most usable medication for a bad sense of life is a closed philosophic system to be understood completely and therefore by any stage of your conceptual faculty. P.S., you may find Roark`s apathetic nature---the acceptance of any sanction of the victim (HE is the victim),---which may seem somewhat ``selfish`` or ``independent,`` an influential and appraisable attribute of him. To be precise, it is his very Achilles Heel, and I think that Rand tries to emphasize it in her book, whereas John Galt has a full philosophic system and knows how to fight an initiation of physical force better than any barbarian who had invented it does.
  4. Then it seems like tautology simply means any metaphysical given ( = not man-made). The so-called `human` group of common attributes contains two hands as it equally does a conceptual faculty. For instance, `A given ant is currently pinching a piece of sand` is a ``tautological`` statement as well.
  5. Please define ``tautology``. I would define it as ``a statement recognized as identical without any previous knowledge of that which it deals with,`` while``identical`` means ``merely derived from the law of identity and the given facts above,`` which DOES require a knowledge about the (axiomatic) concept ``identity``.
  6. Humane Knowledge is knowledge aquired by a rational faculty---i.e., since a human`s distiguishing characteristic is his rational faculty, ``humane`` may refer to a fact which is fundamentally discovered by it. If you used to say ``a fact recognized by a rational faculty`` and therefore ``a fact recongized exclusively by man`` and therefore ``a fact whose attribute is the capacity to be grasped and repeated by a human being,`` for now shortly say ``a humane knowledge`` according to the grammical well known formula of ``an adj. noun;`` ``a modfier subject.`` In day-by-day language and an epistemological context (i.e., the concept of the being of a certain concept in reality and its derived nature, not `why it sounds good to a humane ear` etc.), it means ``some units of a certain concept which consist of an additional common attribute.``
  7. Respectively with the forgery of the existence (or not non-existence) of the arbitrary, it is definitely proven that there no God could ever exist! Axioms for discussion (but not to be discussed (!)): (1) Existence exists; (2) consciousness is conscious; corollaries and relatives: volition, validity of sense; (3) existence is identity; corollaries and relatives: inference, causality. Now to the meat of the proof of the (non) existence of God: Has God created the universe?---The universe does not merely mean `a collection of a certain number of galaxy formation,` but rather the sum of all the existents. That which exists outside existence does NOT exist. As well, if you assume the axiom of consciouness as a primacy over each other you contradict the axiom of existence (since it`s all over your head, dude)---and therefore the axiom of consciosness (sinec the existence of a consciousness is `over your head` as well---and what does have to be conscious with if not existence?). In such a case, I would keep and throw a way the failures of the assumption of PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS as against the lord of history: Is the statement `I imagine a table therefore a table is` true? If it were, I do not imagine God. Q.E.D Has god designed the usivese?---Not assuming the above is causality. Our nature acts so reasonably for the simpe reason it is its IDENTITY. Is God omniscient?---`Omniscience,` in a full sense, does not simply mean `a sexy senior with a Doct. Degree in computer sience,` but rather something which is able to determine the laws all realities by his own ideas. And indeed, according to the following laws we had remained as absolutists above, there is no `chance` that something may be omniscient. Is God infinite?---If he [it] is, an actual infinity cannot exist withtin the universe. An `infinity` does not mean `which sets of no limitation of its own size,` but in a position which is in a given stats of `to large to consist of a certain size`. If he isn`t, God is not endless and therefore not beginningless, which means he might be created, which leads us to an infinite regress assuming the theological premise that maintains: `Everything should be created.` Does God bring Miracles---And again, a miracle`s explanation is not an act that seldom happens, but something that contradicts clear mtaphysical and logical (as a one) laws, and as such, does not exist in reality. Could one not observe God?---A contradiction of the axioms of consciousness and validity of sense: how do you know that? Is God `the Lord of History` or `the Lord of Fate`? If he is, we got a contradiction of the above axiom of free will. If he is not, God is not omniscient and therefore cannot do any better the human beings, hypothetically, can. The existence of a creator consists of any possible metaphysically given law`s contradiction---and IT is absolutely a positive proposition which one can prove.
  8. Sorry, I would supposedly response to your well-phrased post assuming it were not to infer that in fact I am not. Translation: Have you just said `Difficulties`? I am talking to you via humane knowledge, and I have nothing to say to the one who denies its very basis (or at least even on the implicit stage of awareness). I suggest that you try to shoot yourself and on the negation simultaneously. I shall be groundbreaking assuming you would not die in factual reality. Let us observe your post without your implicitly grasped axioms: (a) Without existence: your post does not exist, neither do you exist dor is the `that`. ( Without indentity: your post does not equal your post. It is true at all. Well, do you say that it is merely `imaginary` that I prove that there are amazing fallacies in your post? Think again. Or as a matter of fact not. Thinking is a process of identification and integration. By `identification`, what do you identify---if not an existence and an identity? How do you grasp the meaning of `that`? Of `is`? What is your standard of `truth`, and by what means it is applicable to you and to the nature of existence? How do you occupy `at all`? Is there any non-contextual common nature of existence? If there isn`t, is there such thing as context? Does that mean there is a nature of a proposition? Can a proposition be true or arbitrary or wrong? ETC. Now, I`m gonna make myself a scrumbled egg Oops! How can I know I am actually about to do that?? Hence I have neither volition nor ability to know that which I will do in future, since I am not conscious! Perhaps the scrambled egg is toxic is well! Wait, how could I know whether it includes an onion? What in the world if an onion is not an onion. And perhaps, as a matter of fact, the egg does not actually exist! Shit~! This fact is not definitite or gauranteed. A stone? And by what means can it be written? Assuming it were, it would not help as well---since one cannot identify the nature of certain existents in reality. After proving that existence is identity is an axiom, it is absolutely a rationalistic argument to claim that its necessarity is thus about man`s organization. Then you have a denial and not a denial of it: you deny identity and do not deny identity and dare saying that you are acting accordingly to it, fantastic And if you cannot know that identity is not identity, how do you know this fact? Conclusion: the argument according to which axioms exist only in man`s consciousness is not valid to avoiding finding the masses of HORRENDOUS contradictions in your post. You must understand: to say that `existence` and `exists` are noted in the same context is equovilent to saying that `cat` and `exists` are. Everything exists as much as existence does. Certainly I have understood, in time, that what shall one do, anything he can ever say can never constitute a proof to the absolutism of the existence of axiomatic concepts since each such proof attempts to prove it through the eyes of the metaphysics-less: the system of whom really thinks that there is no exitence, consciousness or identity was screwed out long ago. He shall say: ``Then what if you clarified? Then what if in accordance with the non-existence of existence I do not exist to complain of it? Very true. It is merely to prove that existence does not exist [point symbolizing of a sentence`s end]. Such a person is blocked: talking to him is like talking to an automat, according to his own very premises. He has been living in a world of hallucinations, where no proof proves anything, since a long ago. The point is that one cannot prove anything without the assumption of the axioms ahead: as a one with the lack of convinction of axioms, you can observe of no proof through your own eyes. Every proof is firstly based about the fact there is a reality which could be grasped by a human being: he who does not implicitly understand it himself is metaphysically dead---and will be dead in reality. bobgo, You are meataphysically dead!
  9. a STATEMENT of the NATURE of EXISTENECE Note: This thread is based upon a critique letter about the Objectivist axioms of existence and identity. If you wonder according to which context do I rarely change my argument or what argument against which I claim, you should simply know the fact that it had all performed there. For the sake of the clarity, to be more organized; arguments included: Do you guy think that existence exists is an infinite loop? (1) Existence is not an attribute. (2) A self-evident proposition is a proposition and not a wrong beginning for a closed system (both ``beginning`` and ``closed`` assume there is such, any other premise leads to a self-contradiction). (3) Existence exist => there is something with a different context. Assuming this item I`m holding in my hand exists, something exists, and assuming something exists, this status of `exists` exists. (4) In its syntax, this proposition does not refer to `exists` and say it contains of `existence,` but rather to `existence and say that it exists. Existence is the subject and exists is the object. Or anyhow any corollary of identity? (1) Every denial of any axiom involves a self contradiction, but it does not mean that the standard to an axiom is not `that which is assumed ahead` and certainly not `that which is the standard to each other axiom` (which is an actual infinite loop, attempted to be described at the above), but rather that which you cannot prove or deny. In fact, the process of validating axioms is somewhat circular: I am aware of the fact that a is a or assuming that a is a the proposition `I think but I am not` is contradictionary. It does not say anything about the nature of their being primacies, since each of these statements are necessary to each other, and certainly does not mean that identity (or its corollary of `non-contradiction`) is the axiom of all the other axioms. (2) The axiom of existence does not equal the axiom of identity. The axiom of identity is in another phrase `existence is identity,` which assumes ahead existence. (3) And if what you are gonna respond to this argument is that `Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse as well,` the identity is of the idea or of the fact that Mickey Mouse is presented as if he did not contradict reality. Or, do you claim that the non-existence does exist? (1) The assumption according to which a statement of the non-existence compared to existence is false is not based on the assumption that the non-existence does not exist, but in fact on the negation of it. It assumes that the money one doesn't have actually exists. (2) If you get into another `infinite loop` by that, please notice: as noted above, this statement is not about the description of which does not exist, but rather about its behavior (or non-behavior) in reality: the nothing does not exist. And eventually, above all, to prove that existence exists is axiom is the simplest thing is the world, beyond these rationalistic arguments, and any denial of the need to a primacy, to a first cause, to a beginning, shall be pointless, and will necessarily bring to a real ``infinite loop``. Every man with a proper mental status could implicitly recognize the nature of existence. So do the linguistic analytics and the post modernists. I am about to post this thread in order to those who actually get confuse from their rationalism. (1) One can argue nothing assuming he and his arguments do not exist (2) ==> Inferred from premise (1) there are two directions: (2)a Any proof, the seek for something previous to or more primitive than existence, is false. (2)b Any denial of existence, the seek for something that exists apart of existence, is false. q.e.d I am about to post this thread in order to disproving this torrent of nihilism which maintains that the most basic concept on which each of its claims and acts are based; is sort of an "infinite loop", a logical gibberish statement, which is so self-evident that it shouldn't be called a axiom but rather an unremarkable tautological trivia and thus a pure corollary of the axiom of identity. This argument is considered to be the "new wave equivalent and wise attack against O`ism from its very basis" among post-modern and analytic philosophers. To be noted, this consideration is not about whether "existence exists" (if one [a consideration] turned to be as such, I would stop participating in it): but, in essence, on its being an axiomatic concept. It's been pretty tough to selectively get all the whims out of my own head, though, assuming that the axiomatic concept of existence, does not actually exist. Via abstraction (or classification) and equalization: Existence is an axiomatic concept. A concept equals a mental integration of two or more units with common characteristic(s) and with their particular measurements omitted. A unit equals a well-clarified identity. An identity is an entity. An entity equals an existence. The first idea a recently-born child observes is existence: There is something–––pointing of a bed, a tree on the street or his mother. Any of his latter claims, achieved by a process of introspection or extrospection, shall assume ahead the following: It exists. This is the full grasped meaning of the well called existence axiom. The assumption: "The proposition 'existence exists' starts by existence and determines that, it exists. This statement is syntactically equivalent to the parallel X is Y; α belongs to p:pX, e.g., Henry is cute, the apple is red, women are unforeseeable etc. It considers a specific attribute of something which is, existence. As such, let us exam it as an axiom, according to its standard: Does existence exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask: Does the attribute of existence (from the above ``exists``) exist?–––etc." (a) Consider the following: Does this assumption exist? If you`d say it does, I shall ask, does the concept existence (from the above ``exists``) exist? That`s all. There the linguistic analysis claims at that point that existence is an "attribute" (= a fact that differentiates a concept from another–––which leads to a contradiction of the above: There is no set called 'existence since there is nothing outside existence: From Russell's paradox, if a set is merely a great intersection it must not be called a set) since the following proposition is the simple "X is Y;" "α belongs to p:pX," in which statement they assume ahead their main future fallacy to find existence a 'meaningless' concept: that every proposition must never be any implicit self-evident. They assume that the claim 'existence exists' is supposed to consist of an axiomatic concept rather than 'existence'. They shall charter that "If something, anything [e.g., existence] exists, therefore certainly . . ." Yes, existence exists IS an axiom! There is no fundamental [or any] distinction between 'there is something' and 'there is existence'. Nevertheless, when saying 'there is' you assume ahead that 'there is' exists, so that the only reason for the rephrase is its context (the word "context" is used metaphorically over here). The law of identity, therefore, may not replace it: and in its syntax, indeed, the subject is existence; the object: exists. The sentence does not refer to in given 'exists' (or i.e., something that exists), but simply to the fact of being existent as an existent. Every denial of any axiom leads to a self contradiction (existence exists is form as opposed to negative one: 'existence does not exist,' which is a deep and bad self contradiction but certainly not an 'infinite loop'): every axiom is a self evident that could be denied at any step of its evidence–––e.g., identity is not identity, we are not conscious of the fact we are conscious, I do not will to say I have a free will and as well, existence exists but not the 'exists'. Nevertheless, the axiom of identity which is contradicted in each of them cannot be the explanation of both of the couple of other axioms: Since the standard of axiom is not being an 'evidentless' but being in the basis of any human knowledge. Without existence, as well, no identity can exist. The standard of axiom, as noted above, is being in the basis of any human knowledge: the standard to a primacy axiom is not 'being not assumed ahead in others'–––if it were the primacy could be 'my whim is my whim'. It does nor, however, mean the Mickey Mouse has no identity: All it means is that nothing can exist without one. The facts of existence and identity, therefore, are not equivalent: they are fundamentally different axioms. Assuming that existence is a primacy over identity, the law of identity cannot be the proof to it. Now read the fifth paragraph again.
  10. Oh, certainly. By rational faculty I mean in context, capacity. Babies are born taubla-rasa indeed, i.e., their knowledge is not automatic and thus concepts are not particularly and arbitrarily genes, but, a thought, the process of integration and identification, is necessarily an act of choice. If while solving the problem of universals there context consists of no volition, then one is neither conscious nor rational, but rather an automatic animal, acting for its survival, whose inventions set of no valuable consequences on reality. But: p1. since yet they cannot use in real-life problems, and p2. since life is not the negation of death (see reification of zero) p3. their parents brought them to here and now's world Therefore, their means of survival is not merely they reason, but their parents' as well. When man's justification to the right to property and liberty (and self defense of them) is inferred from the fact it is his means of survival, of the ownership of his very own body, to promise to cause a baby's latter right to liberty and property, they should be used for the sake of his previous life. His whole only fundamental rights (i.e., that which symbolize of a certain principle from which all other allowed things are inferred) are life and the support of present and future rights, from his parents. The last one, moreover, like any other right, is contextual: a parent has no right to force his baby repeat Marx' writings nor does he have the right to forbid the reading of more `educational` books (whether should he forbid his right to read malevolent philosophies such as Marx' is his very own decision).
  11. Here is the connection: Morality is a code of values -> values are gained or kept using virtues -> rationality is the primacy virtue Immorality is a wrong \ none code values that does not help to achieve one's survival and to pursue his own happiness -> values are not gained or kept and therefore not gained of kept using using virtues.
  12. 1. The assumption that the fact something does not exist since there is no proof to it necessarily contradicts reality 2. The circular logics of 'since a claim is arbitrary and the arbitrary does not exist an arbitrary argument is a false argument' Summary: The existence of an arbitrary thing is not a false proposition, but rather the thought that the arbitrary exists in essence. The proposition: a pink rabbit does not exist is a default. You can prove it otherwise and then it shall become falsse.
  13. There is no right to hack to anyone's private computer. There is right to know governmental private diplomatic information since a government should not do any negotitation at all. Its unique role is in protecting individual rights. There is no right to pass military information to the irrational enemy. Now do your own calculations.
  14. Assuming it is not posted here by mistake instead of at 'political philosophy': it is a context dropping. The context of the thread is not 'After a teacher in my high-school had done an epistemological fallacy in her things, I wonder if there IS such thing as the middle east,' but 'After a teacher in my high-school denied the existence of the middle east I wonder about her epistemological fallacy.' Geography lessons are the last thing one shall find talking about in my free-time. This thread is merely about an epistemological fallacy.
  15. Or: A Concept is not simply "a group of units". I recognized a new abstraction fallacy: the form of any collectivism \ democracy. I was proven to know it in a geography lesson: When our teacher determined that middle east 'cannot be clearly defined' since it has no actual distinguishing characteristics. To show that, she observed any of "them" apart, but this fallacy is a lesser interest to me. Consider the following couples of true proposition without the following application for example: (i) NZ is a country (ii) One cannot get from Hong Kong to NZ by a bus (i) 2 is a number (ii) 1+1 does not equal 0 (i) Man, whose concept is based upon a group of common attributes, has rights (ii) Blessed reliefs have no rights The fallacy is the disdifferentiation of a concept and its units. It is the circular equality of "equals" and simply "is a private case of". (In circular I mean, in context, as follows: Since identity (and thus the symbol "=") is an axiomatic concept, its theft requires an axiomatic reference as well: "Equals" IS 'is', 2 + 2 is 4, but 2 + 2 is an arithmetical verse as well. When you assume that identical = consist of some noted common attributes, and thus that consists of some noted common attributes = identical, you assume this assumption ahead: "Equals" is to "is" as "2" is to "number".) It assumes that every brunch of particles in the world is an ultimate result of a 'humane arbitrary process of defining common characteristics' (an evident description of concept formation), and thus considers any independent, direct, research of them 'anti conceptual'. Its ultimate consequence is the destruction of the law of identity, or more specifically the belief that the nature of things depends on the first cause of a certain volitional process of man's consciousness. Its errors are, both in metaphysics and in epistemology, as follows: The thought that units have no identity, that A is not A, and an foreseeable existence, and the misunderstanding of the origin of concepts: finding them arbitrary beings which exist automatically in man's mind. Any self contradiction one may find in this failure, in the 'primacy of abstraction' (in order to identity) in particular, is a result of the above. In regard to the noted geography lesson: In reality, a unit need not have any 'distinguishing characteristics' (in context to the middle east, certainly not intentional ones) except from the fact you noted it as an individual unit; be it expressed in its exact location or its period according to a given standard. The pick I'm currently holding in my hands doesn't have to be on any less abstract concept than 'pick': Nor does it matter if I hold it or throw it away. In a given stead one participle, or two distinct points always completely determine one straight line. In effect, each of my pick's specific points determine a specific matter and its and a hair from my eyebrow's edge completely determine a specific straight line.
  16. The first premise that gets into politics is that man is the only rational and volitional animal. He has no automatic guidance to the achievement of values, and all he can do is to integrate the foreseeable nature. The above infers that other men are volitional as well. Therefore, if a group of men shall avoid an individual's pursuit of his own values, he won't be able to survive accordingly to nature. But a 'group of men' is also a set of individuals who should survive qua men, and contradictions [in context about man's own nature] cannot exist. Thus one cannot promise his own survival without promoting the recognition of his own rights. Now, as we understand why, in effect, such a law is required, the question is: What laws are the proper ones, i.e., how can one objectively defend his own rights? The main assumption to determine the following will be as follows: p1. Law and right are derived from man's nature concepts. Man has a specific nature. Laws, therefore, may consist of no contradictionary view on man's unique nature. When, you may ask, such contradictions exist? Well, by definition, the legal initiation of a physical force is, in essence, the only means contradictionary view on man's nature. The contradiction, in context, is not about the existence of it, but about its function in laws: A society that enables it is not a state [or at least not a proper one] but an anarchy. The contradiction is the view of such barbarism as a 'law based upon man's nature'. A law that initiates physical force is a conceptual contradiction. A contradictionary law that does not permit the initiation of physical force is a conceptual contradiction as well. There can be no dictator without the right for his own liberty; Nor can a theft without the right to hold any property at all. No murder, therefore, can exist without the implicit right for his own life. And how can one prove that this standard of noncontradiction shall be sufficient to defend the noted at the top paragraph? Well, this is implicit there: Rights are to promise that man will be able to live as if he survived only as well as his integrations are, without any other men to forbid it. They should not make your morality 'higher' but, in fact, to avoid immoral men to be disturbing its private consequences. This, in my opinion, is the standard of law. Any questions?
  17. Don't excuse, this is the most comforted salutation I could have heard last period. No sarcasm. Notice: for irony's sake, this message is written from school's IP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7bg2Lyg970
  18. Yes, and you what 'productive central purpose' means in context. It's hard to me to imagine John Galt or Howard Roark as soccer players instead of mechanics, philosophers and architects. That would be perfectly ridiculous. And it has a very specific justification in Objectivist philosophy: Art, science and philosophy are man's qua man survival. More specifically, they have a very important role to man's life, and I think you know it. Read my things again. I did not say that getting money from sport is a crime. As well, I did not say that getting money from gambling in the internet is a crime, like all those socialist who cry they get no career with the same talents one who [gabled] has. No, it isn't right: it is a simple business making ability, with one who, eventually, made it in a more productive way. What I said was a follows: I think that all the mysticism of "Soccer is art in a very mystical way that no one can integrate; it is more logical than set theory; it symbolizes of our life", and especially when it becomes "Whom we support and whom kicks his ass," is not rational, and not living qua man. Respectively, I see most of the guys from my school that see sport as a productive central purpose unemployed in future. Weston: If you say, all right. No, that's a context dropping! I didn't say that supporting a team for a non-athletic reason is irrational. I said that the context always has to be about the values you share with the people that participate in the team: a school in which you expand your knowledge context or a team which is objectively the best (value of body developing) (but then the concept 'support' becomes meaningless). I said "independently on its members". If you cheer a team because you want a player of its who shares values with you to win, or because you know it has a lesser governmental regulation, who am I to tell you it is immoral or irrational? Yes, this is what mystics of the mind call "practical knowledge". For instance, when you go to a philosophy course at Leningrad university, you get practical knowledge, so when somebody tells you a philosophical sentence you can contradict it by "Oh, this was said by X, on Y in the book Z, so nothing new". Yes, if your reason to want them to succeed is more than the circular proposition of "Because they win!". A general question (not on your team): is there such thing as sports philosophy? That reminds me when a TV chef started subconsciously writing poems about the proper color of a tomato in the broadcast my grandmother said he is "philosophizing"
  19. Then, in the sense of the consideration of the characters that Ms. Rand foresaw, I have a little "confession": I'm a 10th grade student (but who really cares). Now, observe some of the discussions I've had with the collectivist professionals (I learn in a public school). These are not the exact full conversation, we talked about my curious handwriting as well, but the full relevant and contextual part of it: With the counselor: "Yes." "Hi" "Hi." "So . . . We invited you for . . . How are you doing, first of all? "It's all right." "Really? Good, honey. Well . . . I understood you hadn't actually participated in the 'team building-up day' since, you didn't really want to?" "That's right." "Then, well, maybe you're coming from the Open School and all, Tomer, but you must understand that the stuff is different here. Here you have discipline and you do not decide whether you get to an operation or not" "I get it and I'm here to learn." "That's the whole point . . . You are not . . . Merely . . ." "Maybe not for you, but rather for me, and that's the beauty of business . . ." " . . . You are here to finish with some social values . . ." "Which values a society has?" "In the 'team building-up day'?" "In a generalized way." "There is, for example, in the 'team building-up day', there is the value of belonging, fraternity, humility . . ." "These are not values!" "And even honor to the occasion's organizer." "My time is a higher value to me." "Excuse me? Do I hear what I seem to?" "Yes, the status is surprising. Sounds like he hasn't . . . Done his passage yet." "It does not promote my life." "I really respect the fact you are cute and . . . Yes. But it doesn't work so here. Life is not black or white. You only that which promotes you? Are you the central issue?" "But they are black or non-black. And, in regard to the central issue, I could prove that if you brought me a pen and a paper . . ." "No matter, I'm not here to argue. Just, give me mommy's number." Thus she tried to get me ten points lesser in my math grade, but I succeeded to eventually avoid it. Now, with the 'self-obligation coordinator': Then, t began when I told her that I have no opinion on my preferences for this task of 'self-obligation', and she suggested to recommend me about places, after clarifying that issue with all the other students who did not serve the self obligation form. "Okay, begin with that: which place do I have the highest precention to get a minimum wage in future from?" "W . . . What??" "Which place do I have the highest precention to get a minimum wage in future from?" "W . . . Why do you talk with in terms of benefit?! It is a duty!" "Yeah, I know I won't be allowed to get a monopoly certificate if I won't be doing the self obligation task, but assuming I am I thought to try to use it to a future job. "But . . . but . . . It is your commitment to the community! A donation to the society! You don't do this for your own benefit!" "Fine, but a livelihood is required, isn't it?" "Would you hear that? When you'll be grown you'll serve in the military, go to college and work in whatever you'd like. But now, you're over here at school to learn." "And to earn something for now? "No~! . . . Need help the society, the weak people, you live in a state and in a society, not in your own ivory tower!" [Thanks God it is not right to say in English, but in Hebrew when you wanna say that something is required in your opinion you can begin the sentence simply with 'need', i.e., without any subject!] "Who need?" "We want to educate our students to values of helping the weak ones . . ." "I don't." "But you do this any how, then why not do this for you deepest depths? From your hear? Thus ones needs to! That's our purpose!" "Let us face it: nobody does this task from "the deepest depths of his heart". Students do this since they must." "The self-obligation project exists in so-many countries worldwide." "Then what? First your argument was that it is my moral duty and now that people shall use physical force on me to do it?" "That exactly the idea: if you live in a society you should give your own. You don't live alone in the jungle, am I right?" "Why?" "What 'why'??" "Why?" "Because . . . We are human beings, not animals! We should help the weak ones!" [Looking away] " . . . Man is a rational animal . . . How do you infer from that that he must help the weakest of his species?" "Com'on, it is . . . Just because he is a rational animal! It is rational and cultured to help the weak ones!" "How, exactly, is that argument rational and not emotional;?" "Because a man who doesn't help others live for his own sake, alone!" "So . . .? "Look, I don't wanna get into . . . Philosophic discussions here . . . I can only hope that when you do your self-obligation task you'll get how much . . . Pleasure it gives you." "I'll get it if you'll explain me." "Right, let's just tell where do you wanna do your task and end with it." "Again, where do I have the highest precention to a future livelihood?" "I don't know about future livelihood! This isn't my job! I'm here to know who donates the community." "If the standard is not my own value, I think that you'd better put me where there is enough stead." [smiling] "What is where there is enough stead? There are about 30 places. What do you prefer?" "Then, in where there are the less volunteers." "I've got an idea, to suggest you? Fine! There is, to help a hardening child on the 7th grade? " . . . No . . . " "What? Why?" "Because . . . I don't really desire to help hardening children on the 7th grade . . ." "What's 'not desire'? It is your duty to the society! Right, what's your opinion about the SPCA? You probably like pets, do you?" "Not . . . In the sense . . ." "Do you have the report that details the self-obligation places, right?" "I do." "What's your opinion to look at it yourself, and come back to with a final answer later?" "My opinion is that it will be pointless, just get me where there are less volunteers . . ." "Good, nevertheless look at it, maybe it will change your mind. Now, get back to your lesson." Then, do you ask yourself, why will they keep behaving so even if they were proven that selfishness is moral and how can you avoid it? My opinion at the last paragraph above is as follows:
  20. Well, try this one: "Lemma I: Man needs a rational code of values. Proof: [ . . . ] p2. Man has no automatic guideness on how to act in any status––he has to think to survive. p3. Value: that which an organism acts to gain or keep. A creature has to gain or keep, to live, according to its own nature. p4. p1. + p2. + p3. ==> Man's life: his process of self-sustaining and self-generated action---and his process of its gain and keep are not automatic: it requires a continuous act of survival––that to integrate which he needs a rational and volitional code of values (morality). Lemma II: [in context does not serve as a lemma] One's life is his ultimate value. Proof: p5. Assume in negative that there is a V ultimate value rather than the actor's own life. p6. In some situations, one will have to choose either of two values. p7. p6. ==> In such cases, a man with a V value will sacrifice his life and will be kept with no value left." q.e.d If them people you know do not get convinced from a logical proof such as it is, their problem is with the fundamentals, and in my opinion you should leave them alone: Their reason is volitional. The problem, therefore, is not necessarily with the clarity of the Oist explaination, especially when we talk of anti-conceptual mentalities.
  21. It depends upon the full given context: To do sport for the sake of your own value of health is a proper moral virtue. To see sport as a centeral productive purpose is an early stage of barbarism; it is not man's qua man life. Supporting a particular team, independently on its members, connection with you and mainly its success, is a deep stage of subjectivism, and a complete whim. Apparently, the two latest ones are widespread together in our days.
  22. This is no tough job. Selfishness is the means of acting explicitly according to the pursuit of your own life as a single ultimate value. Rational selfishness is in effect the stage in which you actually succeed to promote it according to the factual reality.
  23. There is if by 'obligation' you mean 'commitment,' not 'duty', meaning that you must act accordingly after signing a contract and have no right to do it otherwhise. There is such thing, as well, as moral necessarity: e.g., to survive one should live qua man. There is no such thing as a fundamental, a metaphysical obligation: e.g., the original sin, which leads to an unavoidable self contradiction; If one has an unavoidable congenital moral duty, he therefore isn't a volitional being, and if he not a volitional being there is no such thing as morality to his values. In an ethical context, values are chosen to guide his life and the purposes of his life. Every obligation is contextual: whether to a certain consequence or to a certain method.
  24. As a music, it is no 'selective re-creation of reality into metaphysical value judgement'. It is no selective, nor re-creation of reality and very surely no metaphysical value judgement. The following is popular literature, but without the small -- very small -- effort to write that exists hardly even in pop literature. I would not regard her as a Wynand -- you cannot find in her biography or sort of 'social speeches' any clue to basic understand of the term 'philosophy', though, neither Keating was rich for a while -- neither Marx keeps selling copies of his own 'capital'. Are they moral? Are they a creation of a free society? To get a value of money as a value must be conextual to how one gets it. Not everything you do and sell means your creation is valid in propert to standard X, nor everything you thing gains or keeps yours. If she were marketing herself as a 'sexy shower', I appraise, twas ethically just. But as long as artist with a lower value that aspires not to a free society such as Gaga or Keating, is to get way more money than a way better one -- all you can know is how a society is not philosophically interested or qualitified to be free, and you can assume what shall happen with money's value. T.R.
×
×
  • Create New...