Edwin Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Sometimes when I get tired of not being able to convince people about the existence of Objective reality and our capacity to know it, I push them into a D2 from their D1. And watch them squirm to find footing. I seem to enjoy the sight of their philosophical frustration because they refused to be I. Is that moral? Sometimes I feel it is Justice that they suffer, and I should not be merciful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Are you referring to the DIM hypothesis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Cody Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 What is a D2 and D1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) What is a D2 and D1? In DIM Hypothesis, Dr. Peikoff maps out the human psycho epistemology into 5 categories: I, M1, M2, D1, D2 (where I stands for integration, M for mis-integration and D for dis-integration). And example of mis-integration is religion (which uses abstract principles as floating abstractions), an example of dis-integration is modern philosophy (which seeks to destroy those principles). M2 and D2 are more fanatical (consistently irrational) versions of M1 and D1. With that, I hope it's clear that the OP is not making any sense, and this thread is going to do the right thing and die. ( P.S. although I haven't seen the new Batman yet, so maybe I'm missing something. Edited September 24, 2012 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 I assume the OP is talking about reducio ad absurdum polemical approach. To answer his original question, as such here's nothing immoral about that approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppw Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Getting pleasure out of seeing others frustrated isn't exactly a sign of a rational mind. mdegges 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Intentionally forcing someone into destructive ideas as an end in itself would seem odd, but pushing an irrational person by playing their game could have its moments. An example would be Taggart's wedding were Francisco tells someone about the copper crash coming in the morning just to see all the moochers panic in their dependency and run for the doors (although part of that was a demonstration for Rearden's benefit as well). The end with Francisco, Rearden, and Dagny left alone staring at each other in an empty ball room still cracks me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musenji Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 SA, I wonder what happened in that scene, after they were the only three left. It seems completely unrealistic that at that point they'd all just go their own separate ways without saying anything to each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.