mmmcannibalism
-
Posts
98 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by mmmcannibalism
-
-
Since Rearden metal seems to mirror mithril in terms of legendary metal properties, I'd look into what color scheme is supposed to be associated with that.
-
There is a flawed premise that its easy to set up a situation where an animal will be in this state
"Two equally desirable choices, that will remain equally desirable until death by starvation".
If that is possible, its going to be far more involved then just sitting two piles of hay equidistant.
-
Something kind of like this?
The thing is, Romney isn't relevant anymore so I don't see why including him is necessary for a higher standard.
I'd actually say the key thing seperating the two cartoons is that this latter one is actually making a (small) intellectual point. Suppose you were a hermit who lived in the mountains who only picks up 'current' events a few times a year. At the very least, this does provide you some actual information that you can begin to evaluate based on. "I think X is punching America" doesn't encourage rational analysis.
-
I agree, what could possibly go wrong if Americans just start casually flinging around nuclear weapons to prove we are the good guys.
Its not like declaring our casual willingness to slaughter millions of people will cause any sort of long term problems. -
The 'ultimate' laws of nature are just the facts about how the world works that aren't further reducible.
The relevant question is whether a certain 'law' is the sort of thing that is capable of changing. For instance, gravity could become stronger per mass if the thing that causes gravity is able to change in a way that it creates a higher value for gravity.
As an analogy. If we lived on a planet with an almostly perfectly constant temperature (a bit silly example), then encountering temperature would lead to us thinking the laws of nature changed. However, what really happened is that we discovered our theories weren't incorporating something.
Likewise, gravity strength can't change if the strength of gravity is just a basic fact about matter. But gravity can change if its really a fact about how some variable thing is 'sitting' in relation to matter.
-
No! Objectivism is closer to compatibilism by asserting that everything is subject to causality. It's true that Objectivism doesn't support any kind of strong determinism where cognition is irrelevant. Metaphysical liberterianism is more like the view that free will is not caused by anything because it is an "originator" of action with no prior cause. But neurons and all that don't just function from some force of will, your brain operates by means of causality and having an identity. Rand didn't mean free will as "metaphysically liberated", it's more like that people make choices among alternatives with a conceptual method. People aren't like rocks rolling down a hill, nor are they ghosts in a shell.
I think this is a disagreement about focus.
Depending on context, it changes whether you should stress the existence of alternatives or the fact that its still causal. The way it was asked, I think stressing that its actually free was important.
-
5. Rand's argument for IP law isn't based on appeal to social utility and isn't about "pragmatism" in the sense you used it
7. Ayn Rand believed in free will, in what is close to the "metaphysical libertarian" sense. Of note, she believed in free will and didn't believe that future events were 'set in stone' when they involved things like humans that have free will; which makes her not a compatibalist.
8. There's two things to split off here. First, there's a difference between something being possible (in essence not being a contradiction) and us having reason to believe something. Unless you have reason to believe in those things (which would win you a nobel or two) its contrary to Objectivism to think they are true. Secondly, Objectivism rejecting God is based on a particular concept of God that comes from one segment of the Judeo-Christian tradition and has contradictory or impossible properties ascribed to her. Objectivism doesn't have an objection beyond "there is no evidence so don't believe it" to things like Zeus.
-
You have to give Hitler some credit, he did contribute to the destruction of a ridiculous style of facial hair.
-
You can't be unintentionally choosing to do something wrong while not intending to do so.
The only thing of moral relevance is how you acted prior to and upon finding out you made that sort of mistake. There could be an error such as not handling a known problem with forgetfullness or a problem after such as not being appropriately apologetic, but you can't be acting immorally while not acting consciously.
-
Never heard of it until now.
Is it just me or does it sound absurdly similar to "check your premises"?
I smell conceptual thieves.
Some people need to have their stoopid slapped out.
I doubt its conceptual theft.
But the reason it sounds similar is that (see my other post), the notion of privilige is more reasonable then people who dismiss it want to admit. The notion that people are often uninformed on an issue via lack of personal experience with it is pretty obviously a reflection of reality. The problem comes when people overreach the information aspect of privilige and start claiming that tribal membership grants tribal knowledge.
-
Its a package deal that groups together
A. the reasonable claim that life experiences often provide important perspective on various issues.
B. the appeal to tribal knowledge that is based on group membership.
-
There's a tendency to package deal "has self esteem" with "incapable of empathy"
-
Intoxication isn't a singular type of thing such that you can say all intoxication is equally (im)moral
-
I'm less perturbed by her improvement compared to previous scores and moreso by the shattering of a world record. The idea that someone vastly improved themselves is easy to believe, the idea that someone was able to personally make that much physical progress compared to other professional athletes is rather strange.
-
What does 3. they can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. Actually mean? because no one is contextualizing what that mandate is supposed to be changing; since obviously it involves something considered to be exploitive. Otherwise it woudl be like saying fire insurance must pay even if your house catches on fire.
-
There was technically a government; as the judge was appointed as an actual judge.
However, the point of the gulch was to represent what would happen in a very small society of people who were essentially morally perfect. Rand wasn't saying that you can have a country without a government; just that 50 truly amazing people can live without police prescence.
-
(I hope this is the right place to post this).
Recently, I found a copy of the fountainhead in a local library with a cover that I haven't seen before. The cover was a picture of Roark with a picture of a woman(presumably Domanique) on the spine. I believe the book indicated that the cover was illustrated by Frank O'Connor. I can gather more details such as the copyright date listed if this is of possible use.
Thanks in advance for any help; I'm just curious if the book has meaningful historical value that would make it worth my time to try and acquire it through some sort of book trade with the library.
-
I'm a little mixed in my response.
I'm in agreement with the idea that atlas shrugged is too mature in theme and content for the age group provided. However, a lot of her specific claims are hilariously absurd such as her son being unable to judge cigarettes properly because of one paragraph of text. Also her suggestion of the Illiad is hilarious both because it doesn't teach the things she claiming must be taught through books(opposing opinions be damned) but also because the Illiad is essentially a giant montage of violence.
-
Its not a distinct point, its a continuum.
edit--for instance, your parents should stop making sure a child brushes its teeth years before they let it leave the house.
-
Isn't it pretty well recorded that the straw poll here doesn't mean anything? That is to say, the process behind it completely removes its predictive capabilities.
-
Analogy I thought of.
Would the same people supporting the legality of cosmetic circumcision support a parents right to amputate their child's pinky fingers?
-
So a movement to ban child circumcision in SF has been taken off the ballot for 'technical' reasons.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/07/27/national/a162321D40.DTL&tsp=1
The main reason I raise this is to ask whether such a ban should exist in an Objectivism based government. I believe the ban should exist.
-
If he is only choosing to gain something of value that would otherwise be thrown away, I see nothing wrong with it.
-
The "christian Objectivists" are people so desperate for justification that they took a book that said socialism is bad; and ignored every other part of it to vindicate their own preexisting beliefs.
I'm sure someone who has done more proper academic type study of Objectivism will provide the thorough answer, but there is nothing about being attracted to gender R or S as a person of gender R or S that conflicts with rational egoism.
Is an embryo/fetus part of a woman's body?
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Why are you even debating that question?
Defenses of abortion shouldn't be based on claiming a fetus is 'part of someone's body' because its merely inside someone's body.
Defend the right of bodily autonomy and argue against the notion of fetus rights.