[Previous] Dancing Sucks | Home | [Next] Interests in Problems or Topics

Elliot Temple on May 17, 2016

Comments (136)

E-Book

I will be using this to quote and use text.

pieceofmind.publicrealm.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/The-Fountainhead.pdf

Anyone finding it hard to find an online ebook can use this.

I will reading the book from my iPad though.

I do not own any copyrights to this.

Use it at your own risk.


Somename K Person at 3:24 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5286 | reply | quote

the FH has a word count of 312,000. that's large. was it necessary that it be so long? how well does it adhere to DRY and YAGNI?


Anonymous at 4:23 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5287 | reply | quote

sheesh AS is 562k approx. that's gonna put a lot of ppl off.


Anonymous at 4:27 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5288 | reply | quote

Mysterious J

Anonymous 4:23AM, what's your argument for applying DRY and YAGNI to the writing of philosophical fiction?


Anonymous at 4:31 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5289 | reply | quote

they're principles for organization of knowledge. good fiction should follow those principles.


Anonymous at 4:42 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5290 | reply | quote

Do principles for organizing knowledge in any particular field apply directly to any other field?


Mysterious J at 4:52 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5291 | reply | quote

Ayn Rand did not know about DRY and YAGNI

Forgive her.


Anonymous at 6:20 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5292 | reply | quote

I think repeating yourself can be helpful and good when trying to discuss and explain ideas which are at very strong variance with the dominant culture/ideas. Like maybe any given explanation of aconcept reaches 5% of people, but 10 different explanations of the same concept with slight variations reaches a much higher percentage of people.

Another thing is that if something seems repetitive, you can skim over that part.

People complain about various high quality writers not PERFECTLY optimizing their works for the complainer's problem situation (which is impossible). and the complainers meanwhile do nothing to take control of their experience of the work.

Sad!


Mysterious J at 6:38 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5293 | reply | quote

> Do principles for organizing knowledge in any particular field apply directly to any other field?

knowledge in a "field" often has applicability in another field. so knowledge doesn't respect field boundaries. so the answer to the question is yes.

the concept of "field" is a curiosity limiter. it's the kinda thing educationalists like. fts.


Anonymous at 11:20 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5294 | reply | quote

Anon at 6:20am - why do you think Rand did not kno abt DRY and YAGNI?


Anonymous at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5295 | reply | quote

Ayn Rand put a large amount of effort into editing her books. She deleted many unnecessary parts including some characters.

Mostly, Rand doesn't repeat herself. She writes action-packed books that are really densely filled with amazing content.

Sometimes she explains an important idea in several ways. That's helpful.

Sometimes there are brief repetitions in order to refer back to themes. She'll explain an idea and then later bring it up again to relate it to some new ideas or situations. The second time she'll give a much shorter version – more like the English equivalent of a function call back to the original (like DRY programmers would do) rather than a repetition.

What do her books have that you think violates YAGNI? Example?

It's hard enough to explain Objectivism to people who are willing to read millions of words. For other people, don't worry, she tried to help them too with the shorter book _For The New Intellectual_.


curi at 11:30 AM on May 17, 2016 | #5296 | reply | quote

what's an "intellectual"?


Anonymous at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5297 | reply | quote

why do you care about defining that word? what does it matter?


Anonymous at 2:03 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5298 | reply | quote

the book says its for the "new intellectual". I have no idea if I'm a new intellectual. is it for me?


Anonymous at 2:19 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5299 | reply | quote

intellectual = thinker

yes you could try it.


Anonymous at 2:37 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5300 | reply | quote

why are u sarky?


Anonymous at 2:46 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5301 | reply | quote

?


Anonymous at 2:47 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5302 | reply | quote

intellectual sounds like a prestigious term


Anonymous at 2:49 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5303 | reply | quote

> intellectual sounds like a prestigious term

it is today. idk about in Rand's time. regardless, i know what she meant in this case and told you.


Anonymous at 2:50 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5304 | reply | quote

misread comment as saying I could try thinking. u meant I could try the book right?


Anonymous at 2:52 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5305 | reply | quote

yes, u cud try the book


Anonymous at 3:24 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5306 | reply | quote

>"It's for four years. But, on the other hand, Guy Francon offered me a job with him some time

ago. Today he said it's still open. And I don't know which to take."

Roark looked at him; Roark's fingers moved in slow rotation, beating against the steps.

"If you want my advice, Peter," he said at last, "you've made a mistake already. By asking me.

By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don't you know what you want?

How can you stand it, not to know?"

"You see, that's what I admire about you, Howard. You always know."

I would be confused about the decision too if I was in his position.

How do you know what to do in life?

How to not be Peter Keating?


Anonymous at 7:08 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5309 | reply | quote

please quote better.

your question is very broad. so a broad answer: guess an explanation of what to do and improve it with criticism.


Anonymous at 7:14 PM on May 17, 2016 | #5310 | reply | quote

> I would be confused about the decision too if I was in his position.

You'd only be confused if you, like Keating, cared about prestige. Keating is asking what is more prestigious, to study four more years in the most prestigious school or to to take the job in the most prestigious architect office? Keating's standard is prestige. Keating's standard is what other people will think of him. He wants people to look at him and think "He's the best!"

Keating is asking Roark a question that Roark can't answer. Roark cannot answer this question because his standards are different. Roark doesn't care about prestige. Roark cares about merit. He cares about doing the work he likes to a standard of quality.

Keating didn't even like architecture. So the reply to his question was "neither". He should have gone to study painting, which is what he liked.

Keating had suppressed his love for painting because it was shameful. His mother had manipulated him into going to Architecture because it was the most prestigious profession for her.

And because Keating's question is about what is more prestigious, and the answer has to please his mother, only his mother can answer. And she does, in the scene after that one.

If you like this dialogue I recommend The Art of Fiction where Ayn Rand explains this dialogue by comparing it with a rewrite where Roark's lines are different. Ayn Rand teaches well, she's very honest about what she learned and sympathetic to the difficulties writers have.

> How do you know what to do in life?

The most important thing is to learn not to care about prestige and what other people think of you. Let things interest you. Be honest about what you like. Try things. If you are conflicted, analyse the source of conflict. Are you caring what others think?

Personal example: I used to have a reputation of eating everything as a child (not being a picky eater) and somewhat carried this to adulthood with pride. Only recently I realized how dishonest this was and how silly. There are foods I don't like. Having preferences is a good thing.

> How to not be Peter Keating?

Don't do anything he does. Don't care about prestige. Don't care about pleasing your parents if that means repressing something you like. Don't care about being popular. Don't care about degrees and awards.


leonorgomes.com at 2:43 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5331 | reply | quote

leonorgomes.com deletes posts and comments, and added anti-FI and anti-anonymous rules on the sidebar.

she also posted accusing core FI members of sucking ass. but she was completely unwilling to give any details, arguments, or examples. that kind of contentless hostility is bad.

then she has the nerve to advertise a site like that – which is fundamentally hostile to the values of this blog – here. wtf?

she also violates consent.


Anonymous at 2:53 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5332 | reply | quote

Anonymous rather talk people than ideas. And he hides in anonymity so nobody can find his own flaws and contradictions.

Anonymous at 2:53 cares more about my reputation than what I said. Had I posted anonymously, he couldn't have brought it up. But I would still be the same person with the same "anti-FI" blog. So why does it matter?

What matters if that FI is full of contradictions.

> and added anti-FI and anti-anonymous rules on the sidebar.

In what way are the rules anti-FI? Because FI people like to be anonymous?

FI people were trolling my blog, anonymously, cowardly. I do not want anonymous cowards commenting on my blog anymore. I don't want to attract people who are afraid to take personal responsibility for what they say and who are afraid to have their name on my blog.

Good people are fallible, admit their mistakes, take responsibility for them, and move on. And if others hate them for it, they are bad anyway. They don't matter.

> she also violates consent

Whose consent did I violate?


leonorgomes.com at 3:32 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5333 | reply | quote

when you advertise a website, that website is relevant. you should stop advertising anti-FI stuff here.

you violated Elliot's consent. he wrote

> you may email me at most once every 4 months with an explanation of why to unban you.

and

> you may send the first one July 9 or later, if you want to.

you emailed him before July 9 to call him a troll.

that blatantly violates consent.


Anonymous at 3:40 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5334 | reply | quote

No reply to any of my criticisms. Hypocrisy. Dishonesty. And still talking to me anonymously. Coward. Not wanting to take responsibility for who he is choosing to be.

Why not? Because anonymous wants the pleasure to beat others when they post by name, but doesn't want to allow others to do it to him.

> when you advertise a website, that website is relevant. you should stop advertising anti-FI stuff here.

You didn't explain why it's anti-FI.

FI is not a static world, is it? Do people learn and change in FI?

I will not censor myself.

The person who saw my comment might prefer my writing. I actually provided an interesting reply to what they asked. The anonymous before said nothing.

The person who asked might prefer to read my blog. They might not want to comment. That's their problem.

By not wanting me to identify myself and post my blog, you are pro-censorship and fear competition. Isn't that anti-FI?


leonorgomes.com at 3:57 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5335 | reply | quote

> Keating had suppressed his love for painting because it was shameful. His mother had manipulated him into going to Architecture because it was the most prestigious profession for her.

i recall HATING that my parent wanted me to be a physician for HIS prestige.

it's weird. i recall my parent trying to convince me to become a physician and one of his reasons was prestige (the other was lots of money) BUT from the way he wording things, i could tell that he wasn't saying that *I* would have prestige. he was saying that *HE* would have prestige.

so he thinks i should live my life a certain way so that people can look at my parent a certain way? wtf?!

i don't know why i hated that. i don't know what i knew that made me hate it.

why didn't Keating hate it? what was he missing?


Anonymous at 4:46 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5336 | reply | quote

> i recall HATING that my parent wanted me to be a physician for HIS prestige.

I think Keating also hated it.

But he broke.

I don't know why people break.

> it's weird. i recall my parent trying to convince me to become a physician and one of his reasons was prestige (the other was lots of money) BUT from the way he wording things, i could tell that he wasn't saying that *I* would have prestige. he was saying that *HE* would have prestige.

How did he word things to make you so aware of what was going on? And why didn't you care to please your father?

> so he thinks i should live my life a certain way so that people can look at my parent a certain way? wtf?!

>

> i don't know why i hated that. i don't know what i knew that made me hate it.

If you could learn to introspect, you could figure out why you hated it and what you knew and help other people with the knowledge.

If you have children and they are not strong like you, you can hurt them. As a parent act you can enact the static memes of your own parent, but these will be evolved, so they won't be easy for you to criticize. To criticize them you have to know your ideas explicitly. You have to know to explain why you thought what you thought and did what you did.

> why didn't Keating hate it? what was he missing?

He was missing the knowledge that makes some people strong and some people weak. What knowledge is this that strong people have? What makes some people have it so early? I do not know, I do not have it. You do, so think. And tell us.


leonorgomes.com at 5:22 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5337 | reply | quote

violating consent is a big deal


Anonymous at 5:23 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5338 | reply | quote

how to quote better

My quotes seem to come out OK but I don't know the explanation.

What I do is to copy paste any text that I select to notepad. Notepad is "text only" and will eliminate any hidden code or formatting the text might come with.

Then I do the quoting by hand. It works for the whole paragraph if I put just one arrow in front of the first line. So I don't break continuity. I put an arrow in empty lines between paragraphs. If when I quote my text from notepad it appears messed up, ticking "word wrap" on and off often fixes it. If it doesn't I copy paste the text again and remove all line breaks.

But I don't know what I am doing.


leonorgomes.com at 5:31 PM on May 18, 2016 | #5341 | reply | quote

Google word wrap, soft wrap, hard wrap, some stuff like that, to understand what you're doing.


Anonymous at 4:02 AM on May 19, 2016 | #5347 | reply | quote

oh, was that helpful for you? :)


Anonymous at 4:24 AM on May 19, 2016 | #5348 | reply | quote

Why don't you discuss my story?


leonorgomes.com at 1:36 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5424 | reply | quote

Elliot discuss her story pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase

I will take all the blame.

I am begging in front of you.


Peter Keating at 1:39 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5425 | reply | quote

among other things, violating consent is a big deal.


Anonymous at 1:41 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5426 | reply | quote

>among other things, violating consent is a big deal.

Forget that.. Move on.


Peter Keating at 1:43 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5427 | reply | quote

Lets make a deal.

What will it take for you to move on?


PK at 1:45 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5428 | reply | quote

> Forget that.. Move on.

no

> What will it take for you to move on?

problem solving. at this point it won't be on my initiative.

failing that i'll permanently drop this one issue for $5000.


Anonymous at 1:51 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5429 | reply | quote

I was angry, because FI people were trolling my blog. I wanted them to stop. What shall I do about it?


leonorgomes.com at 1:55 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5430 | reply | quote

>problem solving. at this point it won't be on my initiative.

failing that i'll permanently drop this one issue for $5000.

5000 is too much!! Discount please..


Anonymous at 2:00 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5431 | reply | quote

> failing that i'll permanently drop this one issue for $5000.

i offer $5.


leonorgomes.com at 2:00 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5432 | reply | quote

You should pay Leonor 1 Million for trolling her blog.


Anonymous at 2:02 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5433 | reply | quote

leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.


Anonymous at 2:03 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5434 | reply | quote

>leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.

She gets angry at me daily.

She thinks I am Elliot.

I spend hours trying to explain her that I am not.

Am I Elliot?


Anonymous at 2:06 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5435 | reply | quote

lol


Anonymous at 2:06 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5437 | reply | quote

I am not a spy for Elliot either..

Elliot Hates me.. Why would he hire me as a spy.


Anonymous at 2:07 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5438 | reply | quote

Elliot tell me do I work for you?

Did you hire me to spy on Leonor?


Anonymous at 2:09 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5439 | reply | quote

lol


Anonymous at 2:13 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5442 | reply | quote

Are you familiar with Steven Crowder?

Here is his rebuttal of Alien De button's Karl Marx video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFxWXbdqGIg

Debunking Communism from 'The School of Life'


Anonymous at 3:25 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5443 | reply | quote

> leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.

you said you were willing to drop the issue for $5000. now you don't want to deal with it. what gives?


Anonymous at 4:25 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5445 | reply | quote

>>> leonor has a history of getting angry repeatedly. i don't want to deal with that. she isn't solving the problem.

>>

>> She gets angry at me daily.

>>

>> She thinks I am Elliot.

>>

>> I spend hours trying to explain her that I am not.

>>

>> Am I Elliot?

>

> lol

lol? i didn't give fallible fool consent to share that information.


leonorgomes.com at 4:27 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5446 | reply | quote

> Are you familiar with Steven Crowder?

yes.

> you said you were willing to drop the issue for $5000. now you don't want to deal with it. what gives?

i don't understand the contradiction.


Anonymous at 4:34 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5447 | reply | quote

>lol? i didn't give fallible fool consent to share that information.

You accuse me of stuff and I need your consent to share them?

I did not share any personal info..

This is important.

I don't like being called a spy every 2-3 days?


Anonymous at 4:39 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5448 | reply | quote

> I don't like being called a spy every 2-3 days?

You can stop talking to me instead of violating privacy.


leonorgomes.com at 4:41 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5449 | reply | quote

>> you said you were willing to drop the issue for $5000. now you don't want to deal with it. what gives?

>

> i don't understand the contradiction.

I'm trying to bargain with you. Why are you ignoring it.


leonorgomes.com at 4:42 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5450 | reply | quote

> You can stop talking to me instead of violating privacy.

The info has more to do with me than with you.

You accused me of being Elliot.

Now I need to ask the real Elliot about it.


Anonymous at 4:50 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5451 | reply | quote

>> I don't like being called a spy every 2-3 days?

> You can stop talking to me instead of violating privacy.

sounds like you shouldn't tell him private stuff.


Anonymous at 4:52 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5452 | reply | quote

>sounds like you shouldn't tell him private stuff.

I shouldn't share the stuff that concerns me?

She accused me of being a spy.. I need to share it.


Anonymous at 4:53 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5453 | reply | quote

>> sounds like you shouldn't tell him private stuff.

>

> I shouldn't share the stuff that concerns me?

It doesn't just concern you.

> She accused me of being a spy.. I need to share it.

Why do you need to share it for?


leonorgomes.com at 9:20 AM on May 21, 2016 | #5454 | reply | quote

>Why do you need to share it for?

Because Elliot needs to clarify about it.


Anonymous at 2:17 AM on May 22, 2016 | #5474 | reply | quote

>>> She accused me of being a spy.. I need to share it.

>>

>> Why do you need to share it for?

>

> Because Elliot needs to clarify about it.

How do you expect him to clarify?


leonorgomes.com at 11:20 AM on May 22, 2016 | #5516 | reply | quote

>How do you expect him to clarify?

Why don't you take your discussion elsewhere?


Anonymous at 11:38 AM on May 24, 2016 | #5550 | reply | quote

> “The gentleman was not bowing to the ground, he was not unrolling a carpet, he was not waving a fan over her head; he was only holding the door for her. It merely seemed to Keating that the gentleman was doing all of that.”

why did it seem to keating that the gentleman was doing all that?


Anonymous at 8:15 AM on May 29, 2016 | #5788 | reply | quote

While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem and Justin is wasting their time helping them through "technical difficulties", I've finished another reading.


Anonymous at 6:35 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5795 | reply | quote

Why is Justin so forgiving to PAS and Tessa?

I was told I don't like drawing. They don't like reading.

Actually, they don't like learning. They also make excuses for audio-books.

Actually, they don't want to live. Anthem teaches them how to live.

A book changes you. They resist change. Life requires change.


Anonymous at 6:36 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5796 | reply | quote

PAS falls asleep. He also says "I have no time." Did the time thieves took it?

Tessa hears Gollum's voice in her head to mock the book in order to make it un-serious to her.

PAS and Tessa blame Ayn Rand for their refusal to learn. They trash her beautiful writing. They are close minded. They rather have their dumb expectations of how a book should start be satisfied, than to learn.They're like shitty Ayn Rand critics saying they didn't like The Fountainhead because Howard Roark didn't crack many jokes.


Anonymous at 6:36 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5797 | reply | quote

It's horrendous.

Yet Justin treats their refusal to live as real technical difficulties.

This is what PAS and Tessa are not:

We have come to see how great is the unexplored, and many lifetimes will not bring us to the end of our quest. But we wish no end to our quest. We wish nothing, save to be alone and to learn, and to feel as if with each day our sight were growing sharper than the hawk’s and clearer than rock crystal.

From that book you didn't want to read.


Anonymous at 6:36 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5798 | reply | quote

> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem and Justin is wasting their time helping them through "technical difficulties", I've finished another reading.

this comment seems kinda pointless without saying who you are.

what's the point?


Anonymous at 6:37 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5799 | reply | quote

> this comment seems kinda pointless without saying who you are.

You want to out an anonymous?

You will be banned for that!!

Let me give you a clue - "I was told I don't like drawing. They don't like reading."


Anonymous at 6:41 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5800 | reply | quote

We know who "you" are.


Anonymous at 6:43 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5801 | reply | quote

If you out yourself, that's not the same as somebody else outing you.


Anonymous at 6:43 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5802 | reply | quote

> We know who "you" are.

This content is stolen from LG's blog post.

My identity doesn't matter.


Anonymous at 6:52 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5803 | reply | quote

> If you out yourself, that's not the same as somebody else outing you.

Good Point.


Anonymous at 6:52 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5804 | reply | quote

> Let me give you a clue - "I was told I don't like drawing. They don't like reading."

As far as I can tell this is Fallible Fool impersonating Leonor. Leonor is the would-be artist who had the thread where she was told something along the lines of she doesn't like drawing.

Fallible Fool is also the one who impersonated the guy who built the deck and caused a lot of confusion in that thread.

Leonor is banned, so it would be a big deal if she posted here anyway. It would be the use of force against me.

Fallible Fool, this is a warning. You will be banned if you impersonate someone again. It's fraud and it's destructive.


curi at 7:00 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5805 | reply | quote

> As far as I can tell this is Fallible Fool impersonating Leonor. Leonor is the would-be artist who had the thread where she was told something along the lines of she doesn't like drawing.

WTF!! I am not impersonating leonor.

I am copy-pasting what she said.


Anonymous at 7:03 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5806 | reply | quote

CAN'T YOU READ THIS WHAT I WROTE ABOVE:

This content is stolen from LG's blog post.

My identity doesn't matter.


Anonymous at 7:04 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5807 | reply | quote

> Leonor is banned, so it would be a big deal if she posted here anyway. It would be the use of force against me.

These are pieces of a blog post.

So it would make reading easier.

> Leonor is the would-be artist

I GAVE THAT CLUE TO IDENTIFY THE WRITER NOT ME.


Anonymous at 7:06 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5808 | reply | quote

if you ever again copy/paste anything leonor wrote, without providing a link or other clear source AND putting a quote mark in front of it, you will be banned.

you fucked up big time.

you may now calm down, apologize, repent, and make a statement about your intention to change and reform and learn from your mistake, or you will be banned.


curi at 7:06 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5809 | reply | quote

> you may now calm down, apologize, repent, and make a statement about your intention to change and reform and learn from your mistake, or you will be banned.

If I wrote LG or the blog ID that would be impersonating.

You won't believe my apologies.. ( Even I don't believe them)

You don't believe I can change.

what difference does it make?

Apologize for not putting a link?


Anonymous at 7:12 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5810 | reply | quote

I am already banned from FI for one year+++


Anonymous at 7:17 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5811 | reply | quote

you are wasting my time. repeatedly. this is a problem for me.

one solution i see is for you to leave and never come back. that would solve the problem for me.

i'll give you two other options.

you can leave for a month and then you can write a comment with an idea of a solution to the problem.

or you can paypal $100 to curi@curi.us to show you care at least $100 worth (not much, yet i'm guessing it's actually more than you care), and then you can discuss a solution in comments tomorrow.


curi at 7:17 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5812 | reply | quote

> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem and Justin is wasting their time helping them through "technical difficulties", *I've finished another reading*.

(Emphasis mine)

Is this showing off?


Anonymous at 7:25 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5813 | reply | quote

> you are wasting my time. repeatedly. this is a problem for me.

Wasting time is bad.

Your time is very precious I understand that.

You can stop reading & replying to my comments instead of banning me for a month.

> one solution i see is for you to leave and never come back. that would solve the problem for me.

I don't want to do that.

There aren't many good philosophers out there.

> or you can paypal $100 to curi@curi.us to show you care at least $100 worth (not much, yet i'm guessing it's actually more than you care), and then you can discuss a solution in comments tomorrow.

I would have payed you that if I was atleast half of Rami's level (of knowledge)


Anonymous at 7:29 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5814 | reply | quote

> You can stop reading & replying to my comments instead of banning me for a month.

1) you don't sign them

2) no. you actively cause problems by e.g. impersonating leonor

i take it you choose option 1. don't post again for a month. don't reply to this. in a month, only post what you've come up with about solving the problem in the mean time.


curi at 7:45 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5815 | reply | quote

Struggling to read Anthem

> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem

I (PAS) want to be clear about just what the nature of my struggle is. It is to read with none of TCS-Coercion, to the extent that I understand that concept.

I could easily "force myself" to read Anthem or anything else Rand wrote. I have done that explicitly and inexplicitly with much much harder material. Try Henry James for example...then again, DON'T. You could trust me, he sucks.

But it is in trying to do so without admitting any TCS-Coercion which is the struggle.


PAS at 7:50 PM on May 30, 2016 | #5816 | reply | quote

>> While PAS and Tessa are still struggling to read Anthem

>I (PAS) want to be clear about just what the nature of my struggle is. It is to read with none of TCS-Coercion, to the extent that I understand that concept.

>Try Henry James for example...then again, DON'T. You could trust me, he sucks

Lol! Henry James is one I didn't persist with either.

I agree that it makes sense not to feel under external pressure when reading.

I want to say that I didn't struggle to read Anthem. I don't know why Anon has come up with that story. There was nothing in my post saying that.

I enjoyed reading Anthem despite and whilst noting the silly ideas some phrases provoked (these ideas were in *my* head, not Rand's, as I believe I said. They do not make Rand's ideas in any way silly.) I was aware, though, that others could be put off by such things. I think I persisted and did not feel coerced because I had read her other novels and knew I would get value from reading it.


Tessa at 12:58 AM on May 31, 2016 | #5817 | reply | quote

https://www.facebook.com/groups/285247948157887/permalink/1444806748868662/

Elliot Temple

September 9

Hi I'm a objectivist philosopher starting an email newsletter. I integrate Objectivism with Karl Popper's epistemology. I write articles like this Rand and Popper comparison (they have more in common than most people realize): http://curi.us/1579-objectivist-and-popperian-epistemology

For updates on my work sharing philosophy with the world (which sadly it seems not very many Objectivists put a lot of effort into, but I'm trying!) sign up at: http://fallibleideas.com/newsletter

Many Objectivists are unaware that Ayn Rand was a fallibilist, so you may be interested in this too: http://fallibleliving.com/…/episte…/135-rand-and-fallibilism

curi: Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology

Ayn Rand has the best moral philosophy ever invented. Karl Popper has the most important breakthrough in epistemology. Most Objectivists seem to think that Popper and Rand are incompatible, and Popper

CURI.US

LikeShow more reactionsCommentShare

Comments

Clyde Lyman

Clyde Lyman there is no such thing as "an Objecitist and..." that is properly a "mixed" or "mongrel" since Objectivism is a whole philosophy and an integrated whole philosophy; complete and self-contained. It has a complete metaphysics, a complete epistemology, a ...See More

True-believer syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True-believer syndrome is an informal or rhetorical term used by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.[1][2] Keene considered it to be a...

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 10:01am

Elliot Temple

Elliot Temple Objectivism doesn't have "a complete epistemology". for example, it doesn't have a solution to the problem of induction. nor a solution to Paley's problem.

Rand never wanted a static, unchanging philosophy with no progress allowed. she never claimed perfection or to have figured everything out with no need for further discoveries. i appreciate the caution b/c most ppl interested in making refinements are trying to ruin objectivism, but you shouldn't reject all change out of hand.

Like · Reply · 12 hrs

Clyde Lyman

Clyde Lyman Sehe did not want it mongrelized

How can a philosophy "change" and still be the same philosophy? Principles don't change. They are timeless. That is what makes them principles. Rand also said "Objectivism is complete, It can neither be added to or subtracted from"

Induction is not a "problem" it pertains to the "facts" in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". Reason is "the faculty that integrates the material provided by Man's senses into a non-contradictory frame of reference". Induction preceded philosophy/ Induction only becomes a problem with Ratiionalistic philosophies where you try to "reason" to facts from consciousness or explain the universe in terms of consciousness, which are Platonisitc

As I have said elsewhere. There are a couple of places I disagree with Rand and they are on the structure of the whole subject, and not on Objectivism and one place where I see some incompleteness:

1. Rand said "Cosmology ought to be thrown out of Philosophy". If I understand correctly, Cosmology integrates time into the equations. It carries the contents of the Law of Identity forward. Absent Cosmology, Heraclitus is right; "You can't step into the same river twice". Ontology is about nouns, cosmology is about verbs: What happens to those nouns over time? which is vital in the Law of Non-Contradiction; "A thing cannot be A and non-A in the same respect at the same time" and in principles: A principle cannot be A and non-A in the same respect at any time

2. She has variously described Capitalism as a "social system", a "political system", an "economic system" and a "political-economic system". It cannot be all of those. It can be a political-economic system. since it is the result of what happens when politics intersects with economics. I don't know about "an economic system". That would be like labelling Netownian ideas, Gallilean ideas and Eisteinian ideas as a "science system". No, they were subparts of science which is independent of any particular person. Colloquially you might call capitlaism an "economic system". It cannot be a political system since a political system is mostly about non-economic issues: how leaders are chosen, the branches of government, what a government may or may not do, etc. And it certainly cannot be a social system, since a social system subsumes politics and other thing like mores, folkways and customs: And political economic systems. Capitalism is incompatible with Alturism, well, altruism is an ethical idea which precedes politics. Capitalism requires individual rights, which requires adherance to some form of free will and egoism. A thing can not be both itself and it's prerequisite or roots. Will either of these change Objectivism? No, One will better validate the idea of cause-and-effect since time is now put in the equation and the other will prevent trying to do something that is patently false

3. Rand did not give a full up-or-down answer on religion. She said she was comfortable with "Thank God" and "God bless you" as metaphors, she also wrote "Soren Kierkegaard was better than the Existentialists. He was a religious man" and in the Cantor-Brat race, where the ARI held that both were influenced by ATLAS SHRUGGED, with no stated difference thereof, and the only known difference being that David Brat was explicitly religious. they sided with Brat to stick it to the establishment. The whole of this has led to an unintegrated view of religion. which kind of bears on the Objectivist Standard "debate", "is Christianity good for Man or bad for Man?" for which both sides were ill-prepared. I could have defended either position and actually come to a conclusion. Religion is a philosophical subject, so the real question is what are its components, is it totally rational or totally irrational (before you jump on the last. Think of Aquinas and that Christianity held to an Aristotelian view), and how does it stack up against other systems? Given that it's major competitor is Nihilism, which I will explain at length, I could argue that it is good for Man. Observe thest two items https://www.facebook.com/notes/clyde-lyman/religion-and-the-left/233916676703150 and https://www.facebook.com/notes/clyde-lyman/the-secular-progressives/634456559982491 and compare them with https://www.facebook.com/notes/clyde-lyman/atheism-and-the-right/333075930120557 What comes out of it?

Clyde Lyman

February 19, 2012 ·

Religion and the Left

You will often see from me "if you doubt me [or this]; and I hope you do", because I want you to think for yourself and find out if what I say is true. I do not ask to be believed; I ask to be understood, from that, belief will follow. However that understanding can come only from honest thought. That means I do not "i...

Continue Reading

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

Elliot Temple

Elliot Temple "Principles don't change." i didn't say i was changing any key principles of Objectivism!

> Rand also said "Objectivism is complete, It can neither be added to or subtracted from"

she said a lot of stuff contradicting that, so whatever. also you should cite quotes, especially which don't appear on google.

> Your search - "Objectivism is complete" "It can neither be added to or subtracted from" - did not match any documents.

(no results using "nor" either)

> Induction is not a "problem" it pertains to the "facts" in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions".

the "problem of induction" is a well known topic in philosophy. whether or not its a problem, that is a standard name for the established topic. you seem to just not even be familiar with it. so your understanding is incomplete in that way (Rand on the other hand knew about the problem, but didn't have the answer to it. this isa acknowledged in IToE 2nd edition.). you can read about the problem of induction in Karl Popper and David Deutsch's books. it's also discussed in many pro-induction books.

Like · Reply · 3 hrs · Edited

Clyde Lyman

Clyde Lyman I've been an O'ist for 48 years. the quote is either from the Ford Hall Forum or In one of the issues of The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER. You might try the online or print version of the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Most of what has been said or written about anything does NOT show up on Google. Especially in it's early stages 1959 to about 1968 or 9. You would have to verify my claims via finding persons who were there. Maybe at the Ayn Rand Institute. Also all that is written about Objectivist Epistemology was in the Introduction, which is quite long and detailed. You might find something in her Notes. But, in any integrated system there is very little "play" and also very little in a stable system. What could you change about Objectivism?

I've heard of the "Problem of Induction". I regard it as philosophy going where it doesn't really belong. Inductive reasoning is simply observing and extrapolating the obvious. If the extrapolation fails, ti is because of some interference or lack of full knowledge of the phenomenon, not a failure of reasoning which extrapolates ceteris Paribus, the same as in Managerial Accounting or any predictive activity. it is recognized in Statistics as "error", In research as "alpha" and "beta" errors and in Correlation and Regression (Statistics) and "k; Coefficient of Alienation]" and calculated as k=1-r sub x,y ^2 where r sub x,y is the Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation. At any rate, the inability of induction to always predict correctly is recognized all over the place. There is also the is-ought problem that Rand says she solved. Again, I never saw a problem there, the solution is that "is" implies "ought" since life is conditional rather than trying to prove that the is=the ought. Now here's a REAL problem in logic "The barber shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves: who shaves the barber?" also, if you want to play with linguistics "The gostok distims the doshes"

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Elliot Temple

Elliot Temple published Rand quotes typically show up on google. stuff on the lexicon website shows up. quotes from her popular books also often show up via google books or elsewhere. it sounds like you have rarely searched for Rand quotes. i do it all the time.

the word "complete" appears on 24 pages in the The Objectivist Newsletter, but there's no results for "is complete". i checked all 24 and didn't see anything resembling your line.

"Objectivism is" shows up 4 times. i went through them and none are similar to your memory of what Rand says.

since you aren't able to remember where you're getting this quote from, i'm unwilling to take the contents of the quote as accurate. and if you believe it's an important Objectivist position, i'd expect you to know offhand a published quote along similar lines and provide it. providing exact quotes with sources is what i do when i want to claim Objectivism says something, and I don't think lower standards are a good idea.

> I've heard of the "Problem of Induction". I regard it as philosophy going where it doesn't really belong. Inductive reasoning is simply observing and extrapolating the obvious.

i think it's naive and unobjectivist to consider a major part of thinking to be obvious and not take it seriously as requiring careful thought, systematic methods, etc

Galt said, "Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." keep EXPANDING, don't just say philosophy is done and stop.

here's IToE since you don't seem familiar with the passage:

> Prof. M: The question is: when does one stop? When does one decide that enough confirming evidence exists? Is that in the province of the issue of induction?

> AR: Yes. That’s the big question of induction. Which I couldn’t begin to discuss—because (a) I haven’t worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it, and (b) it would take an accomplished scientist in a given field to illustrate the whole process in that field.

Rand says there's a big question here and that she doesn't have the answer. Popper does. So isn't that *good*? Can't I appreciate Objectivism and also get an answer to something where it's incomplete from Popper?

Like · Reply · 4 mins


Anonymous at 1:43 PM on October 15, 2016 | #6835 | reply | quote

From the Ayn Rand quote you put for discussion on HBL:

> If one found it difficult to maintain one’s loyalty to one’s own convictions at the start, a succession of betrayals—which helped to augment the power of the evil one lacked the courage to fight—will not make it easier at a later date, but will make it virtually impossible.

Is this what Ayn Rand meant by "It's too late, Peter"?


Anonymous at 2:49 AM on November 19, 2016 | #7670 | reply | quote

From Elliot's HBL post "Ayn Rand quotes discussion"

> Taking life seriously, and really insisting on the best right now, is the only way to live. Pursuing the truth with no boundaries is completely urgent. Do it now, or you never will.

I am not sure what you mean by "insisting on the best right now" and how it shows in actually living life.


Anonymous at 3:00 AM on November 19, 2016 | #7671 | reply | quote

you need high standards NOW.

yes Peter's succession of betrayals made things worse and harder, and ruined his life.


Anonymous at 10:28 AM on November 19, 2016 | #7678 | reply | quote

@PAS

from #5816

> I could easily "force myself" to read Anthem or anything else Rand wrote. I have done that explicitly and inexplicitly with much much harder material. Try Henry James for example...then again, DON'T. You could trust me, he sucks.

> But it is in trying to do so without admitting any TCS-Coercion which is the struggle.

So you're not fully convinced to do it. You have other things you want to do? Or is it your reading style that is coercive and you don't want to read that way?

I put on audio books in the background sometimes instead of music.

Sometimes I listen to them while I'm going to sleep/waking up. I leave them running through the night. Then while I'm dozing off/waking up I can listen to a little more. Realise something new, identify some nuance.

It can be nice to listen to while waking up in the morning and be inspired to get to work right away :)


Anonymous at 6:11 AM on December 1, 2016 | #7771 | reply | quote

Reading books

> So you're not fully convinced to do it.

Right. But most of my objections are either completely inexplicit or explicitly tied to inexplicit assessments. Like "boring". I don't explicitly know why I assess it as boring compared to other options, but I do.

> You have other things you want to do?

Yes. Work. House projects. Tinkering / hobbies. Read and respond to online content (including FI, but not just FI). Watch videos. Install and play around with a new Linux distro. These (and similar) are all things I typically choose to do instead of read a book.

I read books pretty much only when I'm effectively prevented from all of those other options. Long plane rides for example. Though I could find a way to watch videos the way I want on a plane, or read & respond to forums offline etc. it's not worth the trouble and so I most often just read books.

I used to read books more than I do now, because I used to be in positions where other things were infeasible more.

> Or is it your reading style that is coercive and you don't want to read that way?

Could be, but I haven't found a style that works for me. I've tried paper books, ibooks type digital reading, RSVP, and voice dream.

> I put on audio books in the background sometimes instead of music.

I used to listen to music in the background. I don't any more - I find my productivity is less when I have background, so I stopped.

> Sometimes I listen to them while I'm going to sleep/waking up. I leave them running through the night. Then while I'm dozing off/waking up I can listen to a little more. Realise something new, identify some nuance.

I don't think that's feasible for me for various reasons. TL;DR because it would cause many problems with my sleep.


PAS at 8:46 AM on December 1, 2016 | #7772 | reply | quote

> Could be, but I haven't found a style that works for me. I've tried paper books, ibooks type digital reading, RSVP, and voice dream.

i don't suggest combining learning RSVP or audio listening with reading a book you aren't very interested in. that's just two problems at once, it'll be harder.

unless you're super interested in RSVP or audio listening. if they really excited you then it could work.

even when you're good at them, it's unclear to me they're advantageous in general with books you aren't very interested in. going faster does help with borderline books or TV (means more stuff per minute, which can push it over the threshold to hold your interest). but it also generally requires more focus and effort per minute than slow reading, so you kinda needa care.


curi at 12:00 PM on December 1, 2016 | #7773 | reply | quote

First reading of OPAR

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR)

Commenting on curi.us

2019-05-17

Intro:

I have started reading *Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand* by Leonard Peikoff ( https://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019 )

I want to learn Objectivism better. Therefore I will do a short summary of each chapter (or block of a chapter) on what I think are the most important aspects. I will also post questions.

If you have read OPAR feel free to comment if you think I missed something important, misunderstood anything, and / or can answer my questions on the material.

2019-05-17

Ch.1, preface and “Existence, Consciousness, and Identity as the Basic Axioms”

**Summary:**

- Philosophy is a system of ideas

-- A good philosophy is an integrated system of ideas without contradictions

--- For a philosophy to function properly one must have & know the full system and how all ideas within it connect

---- Without this (---) one does not really understand the philosophy and will get confused

- Learn the basics and build from there

Basic Branches (make possible a view of the nature of man)

1) Metaphysics

2) Epistemology

Evaluative Branches

3) Ethics

4) Politics

5) Esthetics

- The starting point is to separate the fundamental concepts from the rest

- Fundamental concepts are the ones at the base of human knowledge, the irreducible principles of cognition (of thinking / mental processes?)

- The most basic axiom / the first axiom is:

-- Existence exists (without this fact there is nothing to know)

- Second axiom:

-- Consciousness (consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists)

- The third (last) axiom:

-- Identity (A is A → the sum of that which is attributes & characteristics)

- Existence *is* identity

-- Existence separates something from nothing

-- Identity differentiates something from something else

“There is - existence; something - identity; I am aware of - consciousness”

- Axioms are outside the province of proof

-- “They are the starting point on which all proofs depend”

-- One knows that axioms are true by sense perception, not by inference

- The validation of the Objectivist axioms:

-- “Whatever exists, exists. Whatever exists is what it is. In whatever form one is aware, one is aware”

- If one does not make the effort of explicitly stating these axioms one runs the risk of contradicting ones ideas with the reality of the world

**Questions:**

Q p15 of 434 ”The concept does not specify that a physical world exists.4 As the first concept at the base of knowledge, it covers only what is known, implicitly if not explicitly, by the gamut of the human race, from the newborn baby or the lowest savage on through the greatest scientist and the most erudite sage.All of these know equally the fundamental fact that there is something, something as against nothing.”

- I do not follow. What _can_ exist without a physical world? I do not think I understand the concept of ”nothing” here.

Q p 16 ”Even if biologists or physicists were someday to give us a scientific analysis of the conditions of consciousness (in terms of physical structures or energy quanta or something now unknown), this would not alter the fact that consciousness is an axiom.”

- This means that consciousness research is not looking at consciousness per se but just the underlying conditions, its processes. This is on a higher hierarchical step than conscience itself. Is that correct?

Q p 18 ”Subsequent knowledge makes the explicit, conceptual identification of these facts possible.”

- What does this mean? Can someone express this in a different way?

Q p 18 ”One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception.”

- Is there critique of this? Can we not be fooled by our sense perceptions and how do we separate those instances from the true ones? What is the rebuttal of it?

- I understand that we need to be able to perceive it in some way for there to make any sense to claim something about it. But how do we deal with mirages or hallucinations? Also where does this put theoretical physics (purely rationalistic?)?

Q p 19 ”Examples include those philosophers of the past two centuries who reject the very idea of the self-evident as the base of knowledge, and who then repudiate all three of the basic axioms, attacking them as 'arbitrary postulates,' 'linguistic conventions,' or 'Western prejudice.'”

- What are some the most prevalent of these attacks?


N at 12:17 PM on May 17, 2019 | #12418 | reply | quote

> -- A good philosophy is an integrated system of ideas without contradictions

That's an aspiration or goal. But it's not a criterion of a good philosophy. People make mistakes. Objectivism is a good philosophy despite containing mistakes (including, no doubt, contradictions). Objectivism has value, it can help us, and it's superior (fewer mistakes, less important mistakes, more positive value, stuff like that) to various alternatives.

(This is arguing with Peikoff, not with the accuracy of N's summary of Peikoff. I assume. I didn't go check what Peikoff said.)

> --- For a philosophy to function properly one must have & know the full system and how all ideas within it connect

But no one ever does that. We always have to make do with partial knowledge of things.

> - Fundamental concepts are the ones at the base of human knowledge, the irreducible principles of cognition (of thinking / mental processes?)

No ideas are irreducible. You can always explore further, learn more, question and criticize without limit. You can try to understand more precisely or more deeply. There are on axioms at which point thinking must stop.

This is a good example of how Objectivism is weak on some things that Critical Rationalism (CR) is good at. The weakness is much more pronounced in the writing of everyone other than Ayn Rand personally. It's much harder to find objectionable statements by her personally.

> -- Identity differentiates something from something else

This doesn't deal with fungible things. My bank account has multiple dollars in it. Each dollar exists but is *not* differentiated from each other dollar. (Fungibility plays a major role in physics and is discussed in *The Beginning of Infinity*.)

> - Axioms are outside the province of proof

> -- “They are the starting point on which all proofs depend”

CR explains that this (totally standard, not at all unique to Objectivism) view is wrong. For a bit of material on it, see my recent FI email:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/r9KDPJUwg88/eRa1meO4AgAJ

> -- One knows that axioms are true by sense perception, not by inference

This is not so standard and doesn't make much sense. One can't *perceive ideas* like "A is A". One only perceives sights, smells, sounds, etc.

> Q p 18 ”Subsequent knowledge makes the explicit, conceptual identification of these facts possible.”

> - What does this mean? Can someone express this in a different way?

It means you do reasoning before you're able to write a sentence explaining how reasoning works.

> - Is there critique of this? Can we not be fooled by our sense perceptions and how do we separate those instances from the true ones? What is the rebuttal of it?

As a representative example of how Objectivists (not Ayn Rand herself) handle this, Harry Binswanger's rebuttal of that point was to ban me from his forum. No one quit the forum or started a new forum in protest.

I think the right answer for an Objectivist to say is "your senses cannot fool you. they just give inanimate, unintelligent raw data. you can only be fooled by an interpretation of your sense data. it's your own bad concepts that fool you. the conceptual level is also where dealing with the problem can be done."

that's fine, except: if you view sense data as this totally passive thing (as CR does) that can't tell us what to think (and therefore can't fool us), then it can't tell us axioms, can't guide us, can't give us pointers or hints, etc. if sense data doesn't talk by itself, it can't fool us, but nor can it tell us axioms.

> Q p 19 ”Examples include those philosophers of the past two centuries who reject the very idea of the self-evident as the base of knowledge, and who then repudiate all three of the basic axioms, attacking them as 'arbitrary postulates,' 'linguistic conventions,' or 'Western prejudice.'”

Popper and I reject that any ideas are "self-evident". We always have to think critically. We don't reject the three basic axioms though. I agree that A is A and I agree that existence exists. I'll stay out of debates about consciousness for now. I think it's better to do most of philosophy without dealing with consciousness and only bring it up later, towards the end. I don't think it should be brought up early on like OPAR does.


curi at 3:31 PM on May 17, 2019 | #12427 | reply | quote

#12427

>(This is arguing with Peikoff, not with the accuracy of N's summary of Peikoff. I assume. I didn't go check what Peikoff said.)

I try to stay true to the material in the summary part. Some statements are my own as they try to condense a statement into a shorter sentence - so it could be me misunderstanding some aspects.

>That's an aspiration or goal. **But it's not a criterion of a good philosophy. People make mistakes.** (on: "A good philosophy is an integrated system of ideas without contradictions")

So maybe a better way to state what a good philosophy is would be: A good philosophy is an integrated system of ideas *that corrects for* contradictions within it.

>**Objectivism is a good philosophy despite containing mistakes** (including, no doubt, contradictions). Objectivism has value, it can help us, and it's superior (fewer mistakes, less important mistakes, more positive value, stuff like that) to various alternatives.

Isn't it part of Objectivism to correct those mistakes / contradictions that one runs in to? Cf. Rand's "Check your premises" statement? Commenting on it *containing* mistakes rather than being a *framework to deal* with them.

>But no one ever does that. We always have to make do with partial knowledge of things. (on: "For a philosophy to function properly one must have & know the full system and how all ideas within it connect")

Why can't we know the full algorithm of the philosophy - to know how to deal with problems - and still have partial knowledge of factual things within specific problems? My understanding is that both Objectivism (“check your premises”) as well as CR does that.

>This is a good example of how Objectivism is weak on some things that Critical Rationalism (CR) is good at. The weakness is much more pronounced in the writing of everyone other than Ayn Rand personally. It's much harder to find objectionable statements by her personally.

I will look into CR more (relates to all the CR comments). I have read some of your stuff on it and it makes much sense. Do you recommend I do this in parallel (learn more on CR) or do I run a greater risk on misunderstanding both the Objectivist approach as well as CR by starting with both before better understand any of them?

>*There are on axioms at which point thinking must stop.* (Curi) (on: "Fundamental concepts are the ones at the base of human knowledge ...")

>- Axioms are outside the province of proof (OPAR)

>-- “They are the starting point on which all proofs depend” (OPAR)

>CR explains that this (totally standard, not at all unique to Objectivism) view is wrong. For a bit of material on it, see my recent FI email ... (Curi)

The answer might very well be in the email (I am yet to read it in full), but doesn't this contradict? If axioms are the point thinking must stop, do they not need to be the starting point of what all proofs depend?

Thank you for addressing my question section as well. I will chew on it and then let it be for now to not go out too much on a tangent.


N at 12:32 AM on May 18, 2019 | #12429 | reply | quote

>>> -- A good philosophy is an integrated system of ideas without contradictions

>> **Objectivism is a good philosophy despite containing mistakes** (including, no doubt, contradictions). Objectivism has value, it can help us, and it's superior (fewer mistakes, less important mistakes, more positive value, stuff like that) to various alternatives.

> Isn't it part of Objectivism to correct those mistakes / contradictions that one runs in to?

Yes. I was arguing with the specific phrasing I'd quoted (triple quoted above), which implies that if a philosophy currently has any contradictions then it's not good.

> Why can't we know the full algorithm of the philosophy - to know how to deal with problems - and still have partial knowledge of factual things within specific problems? My understanding is that both Objectivism (“check your premises”) as well as CR does that.

The method(s) of philosophy (what you call "algorithm") are complicated and open to critical questioning, refining, etc. Philosophical methods or frameworks are never done. They're a major topic open to additional thought.

> I will look into CR more (relates to all the CR comments). I have read some of your stuff on it and it makes much sense. Do you recommend I do this in parallel (learn more on CR) or do I run a greater risk on misunderstanding both the Objectivist approach as well as CR by starting with both before better understand any of them?

You've gotta follow your interests. If this gets you interested in looking at CR more, great.

It's generally best to start with the best ideas available (or simpler approximations of them, but not things which disagree with them), which in my opinion means, in short, CR epistemology and Objectivism for everything else. (Mises for economics doesn't disagree with Objectivism, just adds more info. Similarly, Szasz for psychiatry is compatible with Objectivist principles and concepts.)

Order isn't too crucial. When learning any controversial set of ideas, you should remember that some people disagree and try to learn the ideas in a way where you could change your mind later. You should be cautious of making ideas habitual until you've reviewed the basics of all the major schools of thought on the matter. Even with non-controversial ideas, it's good to learn them in a way where you could reconsider later. For ideas which are already controversial, it's very important, and that makes the order you look at ideas matter less.

Re CR, some tips: only read me/DD/Popper, and for Popper only read selections recommended at http://fallibleideas.com/books#popper Other stuff is often wrong or more confusing. Archived discussions are often nice, in addition to books and articles, so you can see how questions and arguments are dealt with. Those are available, in bulk (you have to search for what you want), in curi blog comments and at http://curi.us/ebooks


curi at 4:32 PM on May 18, 2019 | #12435 | reply | quote

Takes too long in between postings. I do want to learn this. There is plenty of new ideas for me to chew on and I feel that if I move to fast I will tend to not understand them but just end up ignoring / missing to implement them in my thinking process. Thus I think the slow pace is more due to performance anxiety than it is having other priorities above this (I managed to listen / read (combo) “Philosophy Who Needs it”, Szasz’s “Psychiatry: The Science of Lies”, and start on “The Return of the Primitive” in the meantime since I did not compel myself to post notes - or make them (apart from bookmarking → not formulating anything worthwhile) - for those. Even though taking and posting notes is beneficial to me learning. Maybe I am too lazy doing the extra - notes & thinking - stuff. Any suggestions on how to move forward here?)

It takes a lot of effort with this new approach of reading and taking notes. I think I am really bad at it right now. I want to understand thing better but still fail at it. I try to read too many books at the same time and end up not getting too much out of any of them. One problem is that I like to listen to audiobooks. I listen to them on walks and at the gym. But then I can’t take notes. Sometimes I do on the phone or make bookmarks, but it takes forever and causes gym work to suffer as well. Maybe I shouldn’t listen at the gym, but I like it and I still get some out from the audiobooks.

Rant over.

Continuing with OPAR.

Ch.1, “Causality as a Corollary of Identity”

**Summary:**

- No conceptual knowledge can be gotten apart from the three axioms ( 1) existence 2) consciousness 3) Identity)

-- Existence is the only one of these implicit from the start - given with the first sensation

- The concept of entity is introduced

-- Entity distinguishes different forms of identity but also collections of identities such as a solar system, Amazon, or subatomic particles (is this correctly understood?)

-- Everything we can observe is an entity

-- In the act of observing entities we observes some of their attributes, actions, and relationships (we are not omniscient and can’t see some wavelengths etc, righ?)

-- Categories is a way to represent different aspects of the entities

--- Categories do not have metaphysical primacy / do not have any independent existence

-- “‘Action’ is the name for what entities do” (p 23)

---“... there are no floating actions; there are only actions performed by entities.”

- The Law of Causality

-- Things act in definite ways and only in these ways. “This represents the implicit knowledge of causality.”

-- Cause and effect is a universal law of reality.

-- “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.” (Rand definition p 24)

-- “Causality is best classified as a corollary of identity.” It is not an axiom nor a theorem byt a corollary. p 24

-- “... the essence of metaphysics, according to Objectivism, is the step-by- step development of the corollaries of the existence axiom.” p 25

-- “The law of causality does not state that every entity has a cause. Some of the things commonly referred to as “entities” do not come into being or pass away, but are eternal—e.g., the universe as a whole.” & “Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused—by entities.” p 25

**Questions**

Q p 23 ”Entities constitute the content of the world men perceive; there is nothing else to observe. In the act of observing entities, of course, the child, like the adult, observes (some of) their attributes, actions, and relationships. In time, the child’s consciousness can focus separately on such features, isolating them in thought for purposes of conceptual identification and specialized study. One byproduct of this process is philosophers’ inventory of the so-called “categories” of being, such as qualities (“red” or “hard”), quantities (“five inches” or “six pounds”), relationships (“to the right of” or “father of”), actions (“walking” or “digesting”). **The point here, however, is that none of these “categories” has metaphysical primacy; none has any independent existence; all represent merely aspects of entities.**

- Would time be a category (relationship) without independent existence?

Q p 24 ”In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity.”

&

”Cause and effect, therefore, is a universal law of reality. Every action has a cause (the cause is the nature of the entity which acts); and the same cause leads to the same effect (the same entity, under the same circumstances, will perform the same action).”

- This should not be confused with free will being deterministic because we can choose what to focus our mind on and what to drift on. Hence deciding what paths to pursue. That is my understanding of a simplified approach to free will. I believe that is Rand’s position too? Am I understanding this correctly? We do not have to delve deeper into free will here than this fundamental representation and weather I understand it in the correct way

Q p 26 ”Many commentators on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle claim that, because we cannot at the same time specify fully the position and momentum of subatomic

particles, their action is not entirely predictable, and that the law of causality therefore breaks down. This is a non sequitur, a switch from epistemology to metaphysics, or from knowledge to reality. Even if it were true that owing to a lack of information we could never exactly predict a subatomic event—and this is highly debatable—it would not show that, in reality, the event was causeless. The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not by itself enable us to predict specific occurrences; it does not provide us with a knowledge of particular causes or measurements. Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature.”

- I know that both Elliot and Alan have expressed that Peikoff’s understanding of physics is not the best so I put this whole paragraph to hear if you have any comments on it. I have no issues with what he said here and I don’t think it has much to do with physics per but more on elaborating on causality - but I could be missing something so I put it in.

If you have anything to add on causality feel free to add it. I understand it on a pretty superficial level right now and will have to revisit this part for a deeper understanding in the future.


N at 10:01 AM on May 28, 2019 | #12533 | reply | quote

> Any suggestions on how to move forward here?

Most of the time, write shorter comments. E.g. take one quote you disagree with and write one paragraph about what your disagreement is. Or, in the alternative, say you didn't spot a single thing in the book that you disagreed with.

> ---“... there are no floating actions; there are only actions performed by entities.”

Is having a gravitational field an action? Or is pulling something in an action?

i'm not convinced that viewing gravitational fields, and some other physics stuff, as being attributes of particular objects, is the best viewpoint. it's not like a planet has any responsibility for gravity. it's not causing gravity to be a thing.

and if you kick a rock, is the rock acting? it's an entity. it's moving. movement seems like action.

he wasn't saying only things with volition were entities. planets and rocks are too. so inanimate objects act? seems confused/confusing.

> Q p 24 ”In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity.”

That's a blatant denial of free will. It contradicts Rand who said you can choose to focus your mind or not to focus your mind (so you have a basic choice between 2 possible actions).

> - This should not be confused with free will being deterministic because we can choose what to focus our mind on and what to drift on.

but it just said that an entity, like me, has only ONE ACTION POSSIBLE in particular circumstances. so how could i have a choice of 2 actions? does Peikoff not consider thinking to count as action!? does he not realize that thinking is a physical process involving electrons moving around and stuff like that, and he treats it as some special thing like a dualist? i know Binswanger is some sort of vague dualist.

> The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not by itself enable us to predict specific occurrences;

ok sure but this reminds me: if physics was indeterministic (= contained random events) then Peikoff would be wrong to say there is only one action possible to an entity in particular circumstances. it could instead be that there are 3 options which are randomly selected between.

the current view is that physics is deterministic in the multiverse as a whole, but basically it's like it's indeterministic as far as our experience goes because we aren't omniscient. so when we roll dice (or shoot a photon at a semi-silvered mirror) we get a random outcome. there's nothing logically necessary about events having a single outcome that must happen with no randomness. and i imagine Peikoff denies the multiverse ... which requires accepting randomness as part of physics.

randomness is not a threat to causality. in indeterministic physics, if you roll some dice you are causing a random number to appear instead of causing a particular number to appear. shrug.


curi at 10:27 AM on May 28, 2019 | #12536 | reply | quote

Firs of, I think I might be too sloppy with quotation. Full quotes I have used quotation marks for. But when paraphrasing I have of course not used quotation marks. Those have been hard to impossible to distinguish from my own comments. I shall distinguish these better in the future.

>> Any suggestions on how to move forward here?

>Most of the time, write shorter comments. E.g. take one quote you disagree with and write one paragraph about what your disagreement is. Or, in the alternative, say you didn't spot a single thing in the book that you disagreed with.

Skip summaries / key takeaways? I'm hoping to catch misunderstandings I might get from others familiar with the texta as you recommend on the "What Books Should You Read?" page.

But maybe I should build up to include that once I get used to the first step (shorter comments).

>> ---“... there are no floating actions; there are only actions performed by entities.”

> Is having a gravitational field an action? Or is pulling something in an action?

> i'm not convinced that viewing gravitational fields, and some other physics stuff, as being attributes of particular objects, is the best viewpoint. it's not like a planet has any responsibility for gravity. it's not causing gravity to be a thing.

My understanding is that yes, a gravitational field is an action caused by an entity (e.g. a planet). There is no possibility for gravity in said place without the planet (entity).

What do you mean by "it's not like a planet has any responsibility for gravity"? I'm not sure I follow. Responsibility in what way?

"it's not causing gravity to be a thing." I believe gravity is the action, caused by said entity (e.g. a planet). Remove the planet and the action, the specific gravitational pull is gone. Or substitute the planet with an egg and it becomes miniscule.

> and if you kick a rock, is the rock acting? it's an entity. it's moving. movement seems like action.

Yes. That is my understanding. The rock is caused to act (move) by your foot in that case. To quote the full part from OPAR (my emphasis): "*By the same token, the causal link does not relate two actions. Since the Renaissance, it has been common for philosophers to speak as though actions directly cause other actions, bypassing entities altogether. For example, the motion of one billiard ball striking a second is commonly said to be the cause of the motion of the second, the implication being that we can dispense with the balls; motions by themselves become the cause of other motions. This idea is senseless. **Motions do not act, they are actions. It is entities which act— and cause.** Speaking literally, it is not the motion of a billiard ball which produces effects; it is the billiard ball, the entity, which does so by a certain means. If one doubts this, one need merely substitute an egg or soap bubble with the same velocity for the billiard ball; the effects will be quite different.*" (p 25)

> he wasn't saying only things with volition were entities. planets and rocks are too. so inanimate objects act? seems confused/confusing.

No, that's right. He says: "Entities constitute the content of the world men perceive; there is nothing else to observe." (p 23)

His definition of "action": “‘Action’ is the name for what entities do” (p 23)

He quotes (p 24) Rand from Atlas p 962 :"All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.”

>> Q p 24 ”In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity.”

>That's a blatant denial of free will. It contradicts Rand who said you can choose to focus your mind or not to focus your mind (so you have a basic choice between 2 possible actions).

This is probably because my quote is appearing out of context. The "one action" here is the action of acting according to its nature. I provide the full context below for your comment (my emphasis).

"The only alternatives would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against

it; both of these are impossible. A thing cannot act apart from its nature, because existence is identity; apart from its nature, a thing is nothing. A thing cannot act against its nature, i.e., in contradiction to its identity, because A is A and contradictions are impossible. **In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity.** This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature." (p 24)

Followed by:

"Thus, under ordinary circumstances, if a child releases a balloon filled with helium, only one outcome is possible: the balloon will rise. If he releases a second balloon filled with sand, the nature of the entity is different, and so is its action; the only possible outcome now is that it will fall. If, under the same circumstances, several actions were possible—e.g., a balloon could rise or fall (or start to emit music like a radio, or turn into a pumpkin), everything else remaining the same— such incompatible outcomes would have to derive from incompatible (contradictory) aspects of the entity’s nature. But there are no contradictory aspects. A is A." (p 24)

>> - This should not be confused with free will being deterministic because we can choose what to focus our mind on and what to drift on.

>but it just said that an entity, like me, has only ONE ACTION POSSIBLE in particular circumstances. so how could i have a choice of 2 actions? does Peikoff not consider thinking to count as action!? does he not realize that thinking is a physical process involving electrons moving around and stuff like that, and he treats it as some special thing like a dualist? i know Binswanger is some sort of vague dualist.

The double quote was my comment. That's what I read out of the context from the quoted blocks from p 24.

>> The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not by itself enable us to predict specific occurrences;

> the current view is that physics is deterministic in the multiverse as a whole, but basically it's like it's indeterministic as far as our experience goes because we aren't omniscient.

So how do we go to it being deterministic if, as far from our experience, it is indistinguishable from an indeterministic outcome? Without it being pure Rationalism. If I understood you correctly here.


N at 11:10 PM on May 28, 2019 | #12555 | reply | quote

> So how do we go to it being deterministic if, as far from our experience, it is indistinguishable from an indeterministic outcome?

That's complicated. If you want to know some quantum physics, start with the sections in FoR then BoI.

> only one action possible to an entity

+ humans are entities

= no free will

i don't understand your reply. my point is that free will requires the possibility of choosing between multiple actions.

also FYI it's easier to read quotes if you put > in front so they are colored.

> Skip summaries / key takeaways? I'm hoping to catch misunderstandings I might get from others familiar with the texta as you recommend on the "What Books Should You Read?" page.

you said you read multiple whole books without commenting. i was talking about what would be better to do than that.


curi at 11:55 PM on May 28, 2019 | #12556 | reply | quote

>> So how do we go to it being deterministic if, as far from our experience, it is indistinguishable from an indeterministic outcome?

> That's complicated. If you want to know some quantum physics, start with the sections in FoR then BoI.

For now I will have to postpone that to move forward on simpler issues. But FoR and BoI are at the top of my reading list.

>> only one action possible to an entity

>>+ humans are entities

>>= no free will

> i don't understand your reply. my point is that free will requires the possibility of choosing between multiple actions.

This is my first dive into these kind of things, but as far as I see it, although a person is an entity his mental faculty is not. (The mind has an identity, but is not itself an entity - cannot exist without the brain / entity creating it.) So here, the only action possible, would be that the brain (entity), in the context of being a healthy brain of a human being, produces consciousness. It can not *not cause* consciousness for example.

From here one can focus / evade on the thoughts presented by the subconscious mind. The only possible action being to *chose* one or the other.

> also FYI it's easier to read quotes if you put > in front so they are colored.

Thank you. I will.


N at 3:19 AM on May 29, 2019 | #12557 | reply | quote

>> Skip summaries / key takeaways? I'm hoping to catch misunderstandings I might get from others familiar with the texta as you recommend on the "What Books Should You Read?" page.

> you said you read multiple whole books without commenting. i was talking about what would be better to do than that.

Ah. Thanks. That is a good first step. I thought you were addressing my issues with moving forward with the summary / note / question / discussion approach I have with OPAR.


N at 3:22 AM on May 29, 2019 | #12558 | reply | quote

#12557 That's dualism.


Anonymous at 11:08 AM on May 29, 2019 | #12561 | reply | quote

> That's dualism.

Could you elaborate and point on what is wrong?

Is Peikoff considered to be a dualist (I read in the Binswanger thread that he might be somewhat of a dualist)?

Or is it me misunderstanding Peikoff?


N at 11:17 AM on May 29, 2019 | #12562 | reply | quote

Dualism is a form of rejection of the material world and the laws of physics. The special non-material category is stuff outside the laws of physics. It's trying to claim exceptions to physics. That's straightforwardly what you're doing when you say entities have no choices but people have choices – you're making a special exception to get around how you claimed the world works. Dualism also involves heavy equivocation and vagueness which makes dualists pretty impossible to talk with.

Drop it. You should not try to talk about consciousness or dualism. It's way too hard. You're not ready. Learn something else. Consciousness should be one of the last topics you consider when learning philosophy, not one of the first. There's basically no upside to discussing it, no reason to do it, and a ton of downside (there's tons of confusion about it).


Anonymous at 11:26 AM on May 29, 2019 | #12563 | reply | quote

> Dualism is a form of rejection of the material world and the laws of physics. The special non-material category is stuff outside the laws of physics. It's trying to claim exceptions to physics. That's straightforwardly what you're doing when you say entities have no choices but people have choices – you're making a special exception to get around how you claimed the world works. Dualism also involves heavy equivocation and vagueness which makes dualists pretty impossible to talk with.

I tried to sum up what I understood Peikoff was saying in this section - including quotes. That entities have no choice but acting according to their nature.

> Drop it. You should not try to talk about consciousness or dualism. It's way too hard. You're not ready. Learn something else. Consciousness should be one of the last topics you consider when learning philosophy, not one of the first. There's basically no upside to discussing it, no reason to do it, and a ton of downside (there's tons of confusion about it).

I have no problem dropping it for now. I'll continue with the next part. But that is what Peikoff covers in the first part of the book so that's why I commented on it. Not because I claim to understand it to any degree.

I do have a question regarding this though. *Is* this what Peikoff is saying in this section of OPAR or am I misrepresenting him mostly?


N at 1:35 PM on May 29, 2019 | #12564 | reply | quote

#MOGA ?

https://youtu.be/995Riq8JdUo

Sunny & friends on Yaron Brook


Anonymous at 9:50 AM on June 4, 2019 | #12651 | reply | quote

> #MOGA ?

> https://youtu.be/995Riq8JdUo

> Sunny & friends on Yaron Brook

Jfc ~17m in vid, Yaron brook concedes Muslims bringing bad ideas to US but compares it to Jews (!) bringing bad ideas to US in earlier wave of immigration in late 19th century. Basically, nbd!! Ppl bring bad ideas here all the time but US culture SO STRONG np.

I think a unified US culture is disintegrating under left wing assault and there are basically two cultural groups (traditional Americans and leftists) in existence now that have little in common. More Muslim immigration doesn't help the traditional Americans ..


Anonymous at 12:58 PM on June 4, 2019 | #12653 | reply | quote

#12653

Context: Brook is an anti-semite.

He gave a speech where he criticized helping others altruistically but said helping *productive* people is self-interested. Then he said that the US fighting WWII to help the European Jews would have been a bad idea which would not have been in our interest, thus implying (contrary to fact) that Jews aren't productive.

I asked about it and his colleague, Harry Binswanger, clarified what was meant: Karl Popper is a villain who would have deserved to die in the holocaust, and the smart people left before the Holocaust. Rather than walk anything back, Binswanger suggested that any Jew who died in the holocaust was dumb for staying in Germany (he said this despite being aware e.g. that Roosevelt turned away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.)

See also:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/f7eefH6zbLI/DZwX6AzZ-OkJ


Anonymous at 1:18 PM on June 4, 2019 | #12655 | reply | quote

Brook overestimates the role of police in America. He has a naive view like "police are the solution to violence".

No, *ideas are the solution to violence*. 99% of violence-prevent is due to ideas, particularly moral ideas. Most Americans don't want to be violent criminals (or any kind of criminal). They don't want to be thugs, rapists, murderers, robbers.

Police are the *third* line of defense against violence, not the main one.

The second line of defense is self-defense. In most potentially violent situations, the police are not going to show up on time. It's up to you to e.g. run away or use a gun to protect your family. Police are more about punishing major crimes after the fact, and also thereby deterring crime. Sometimes they help with crimes in progress but they aren't very reliable for that. When Brook says if a Muslim does an honor killing, put him in jail, and he gives the impression that's a solution, he's neglecting that 99% of the time police catch and jail honor killers *after at least one person is already dead*.


curi at 1:31 PM on June 4, 2019 | #12656 | reply | quote

#12651 I like how Sunny brings up Yaron's lack of *writing out his position clearly*. It's a Paths Forward issue.


Anonymous at 3:52 PM on June 4, 2019 | #12659 | reply | quote

#12651 The Ed Powell on the podcast is the guy from this IQ debate who posts on the Solopassion forum which has a Make Objectivism Great Again political leaning. He sounded reasonable and knowledgeable on the podcast, but he was totally unreasonable when confronted with a political issue where he's mistaken. In the IQ discussion, he showed he's bad at taking criticism, changing his mind, learning, etc: http://curi.us/2056-iq


Anonymous at 3:57 PM on June 4, 2019 | #12660 | reply | quote

Wonder boy strikes again

https://youtu.be/2rziZyy-zE8


Hard Right Atheist at 12:55 AM on June 10, 2019 | #12703 | reply | quote

> Wonder boy strikes again

> https://youtu.be/2rziZyy-zE8

Your text is social metaphysics. You avoided clearly saying what you mean. You used ambiguous slang to convey not clear ideas but deniable hints about your social attitudes.


Dagny at 2:46 AM on June 10, 2019 | #12704 | reply | quote

#12656

> The second line of defense is self-defense. In most potentially violent situations, the police are not going to show up on time. It's up to you to e.g. run away or use a gun to protect your family. Police are more about punishing major crimes after the fact, and also thereby deterring crime. Sometimes they help with crimes in progress but they aren't very reliable for that. When Brook says if a Muslim does an honor killing, put him in jail, and he gives the impression that's a solution, he's neglecting that 99% of the time police catch and jail honor killers *after at least one person is already dead*.

he's also neglecting that it's common (in places like Saudi Arabia) for members of the family (often the women, like an aunt of the victim) to help the honor killers escape the law/police.

that kinda thing doesn't happen in America (or if it does, it only happens with people that have these bad values, people who immigrated here).


GISTE at 10:04 AM on June 13, 2019 | #12761 | reply | quote

#12704 unlike the communist jokes who aren't funny unless everybody gets them, you have to watch the video to get it


Anonymous at 3:03 PM on June 13, 2019 | #12767 | reply | quote

#12767 You haven't even said if you think the video is good or bad. Why are you here? You don't seem to respect or know anything about the culture and goals of this place, and you are just bringing up external material without relating it to any FI ideas.


Anonymous at 3:07 PM on June 13, 2019 | #12768 | reply | quote

Charles Tew is a shitty, dishonest hypocrite (not too shocking, he's always been pretty sad and hateful):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLy5yfGgfgg

The video is well done. It shows things Tew said in the past and things said recently.


Anonymous at 12:33 PM on June 18, 2019 | #12794 | reply | quote

Rucka doesn't understand deplatforming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDItPddFYA

He thinks the key issue is that (without loss of generality) Facebook's owners have property rights and should be regulated less, not more.

The actual key issue is that Facebook has committed *massive fraud*. We don't need more or many regulations, but we do need to enforce the most basic rule of law. Facebook has lied, over and over, about its privacy policies, its free speech and moderation policies, what kind of platform it is, etc. It used these lies, these false advertisings, to defraud users and get bigger than it could have honestly.

Can Facebook have a terms of service and an acceptable use policy and so on? Yes. But that isn't what they are doing. Their ToS is *a pack of lies* which they don't actually follow. The ToS is false advertising about what their policies are. It's a fraud.

So the argument that Zuck built a company and has property rights, and is just an innocent victim of (potential) govt force ... not if he built his company by using fraud. Zuck is a force initiator who lies to users about what they are signing up for and what he's offering them.


curi at 2:01 PM on June 18, 2019 | #12795 | reply | quote

Tew vs. Rucka

#12794 The Tew vs Rucka conflict is interesting. I found it worth watching and considering. For context, they've had long discussions (which I haven't watched much of) and collaborated a bit. Rucka has far more fans than Tew and is a major way that Tew got fans.

Tew made a video on humor and briefly, negatively mentioned Rucka:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJFp_bl9nVY

In part 2, Tew trashed Rucka for a few minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg7M7_FPZ-o

Rucka replied:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLy5yfGgfgg

Tew made a third video and trashed Rucka more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDhyhuNhs_0

Rucka replied again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGtVACsluCI

I'm not much of a Rucka fan, and I see some major flaws in his music, but I basically side with him here. I think Tew is an unhappy person who is unreasonably lashing out (and dishonestly contradicting his own past statements). And it's pretty clearly personal because there are so many people who are worse than Rucka who Charles could be criticizing instead. E.g. the Jonas song *Sucker* (which I'm considering making a video about) is much worse and more offensive than the Rucka songs I tried, and it's also far more popular.

Tew said something I thought was notable. Basically he doesn't think good people exist, so it doesn't matter if he's taking actions that would alienate them, because they don't exist anyway. He's kinda like Mallory (when Roark first finds him and he's given up, doesn't show up to interview for the job, etc.). I sympathize with that, but Tew won't speak with me, so I can't help him. (I seriously considering hiring Tew as a philosophy tutor, or something like that, just to get him to speak to me. But I decided not to because I found that he doesn't take paid work seriously (even though he needs the money). He'd gotten a paid project to discussing MGTOW and handled it unprofessionally. Being paid wasn't enough to get him to fairly consider ideas he was already (ignorantly) hostile to.


curi at 9:54 PM on June 19, 2019 | #12809 | reply | quote

#12651 The next Sunny ep is out and has some followup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPW1DxyPxaE


Anonymous at 5:39 PM on June 21, 2019 | #12823 | reply | quote

Howard Roark

I'm reading *The Fountainhead*. I've currently read chapter 11, where Roark has finished his first building (Cameron's house).

Just now I looked up some of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings. As far as I know, Rand liked Wright's style.

What is good architecture according to Rand and why?

I have read what Roark says to Cameron regarding Cameron's question on why he likes the house Roark has designed (see quote below), but from what I can see, Wright's buildings look very much built to impress from the outside.

Is it fine to impress if it is made impressive in it's entirety (it being honest)? How does this correspond to Roark's final two sentences in the quote below? (My emphasis added.)

Roark to Cameron:

> Well, look at it. Every piece is there because the house needs it - and for no other reason. You see it from here as it is on the inside. The rooms in which you'll live made the shape....But you've seen buildings with columns that support nothing, with purposeless cornices, moldings, false arches, false windows....Do you understand the difference? Your house is made by it's own needs. Those others are made by the need to impress. **The determining motive of your house is in the house. The determining motive in the others is the audience.**


N at 6:24 AM on July 17, 2019 | #13112 | reply | quote

I don't have opinions on Frank Lloyd Wright buildings or other IRL architecture. I don't know. I have not researched architecture. I also don't know anyone who would have good answers about this.


curi at 12:10 PM on July 17, 2019 | #13115 | reply | quote

IIRC, Wright has been mentioned here before: https://www.hbletter.com/

HBL offers a free 2-week trial if you want to ask your questions there.


Kate at 10:20 AM on July 18, 2019 | #13120 | reply | quote

https://www.hbletter.com/how-ayn-rands-philosophy-can-rescue-hayeks-economics/

> In economics, Hayek makes great contributions

> But in philosophy, the story is different: Hayek is more conservative than radical.

No mention of Rand calling Hayek "poison" – or why. If HB knows Rand's opinion of Hayek, it's massive dishonesty to omit it from this article. If he doesn't know, what the actual fuck for someone in his position not to be familiar with Rand's writing.

No mention of Hayek's sympathies with socialism, his advocacy of government-guaranteed tax-funded income handouts to all, and his other huge errors.


curi at 3:14 PM on August 6, 2019 | #13241 | reply | quote

#13241 I want some Objectivist intellectuals and leaders who *agree with Objectivism*. Is that too much to ask? Am I the only one?


curi at 3:15 PM on August 6, 2019 | #13242 | reply | quote

#13241 Why doesn't he discuss Mises? Mises is better on every economic topic than Hayek.


oh my god it's turpentine at 11:54 PM on August 6, 2019 | #13245 | reply | quote

Why didn't Roark tell Wynand that the worst kind of second-hander is a power seeker? I'm thinking of their discussion of second-handers on Wynand's yacht. Why withhold that information from Wynand? What does Roark have to gain from that choice?


Anonymous at 10:18 AM on August 11, 2019 | #13278 | reply | quote

#13278 Rand's characters under-communicate in general in my opinion. It comes up more in Atlas Shrugged, but also e.g. with Dominique needing to learn on her own through life experience, somehow, instead of she and Roark doing a bunch of truth-seeking discussion.

While Rand's take on life is realistic in today's context of what people are like, I don't think it extrapolated a more ideal future world in this respect.


curi at 10:29 AM on August 11, 2019 | #13279 | reply | quote

#13279 Thank you. My concern was mostly that Roark's neglecting to truth seek with Wynand bordered compromising. Given the context of the story, and the learning from experience attitude, that makes sense.

But in the world today, outside of the context of the novel, wouldn't this behavior be compromising?


Anonymous at 11:02 AM on August 11, 2019 | #13280 | reply | quote

#13280 In practice today ~everyone does not want truth-seeking discussion. People respond badly to idea sharing outside of certain limits/boundaries. I try anyway, for various reasons, but I don't see why doing something else instead would be a compromise.


curi at 11:19 AM on August 11, 2019 | #13281 | reply | quote

#13281 But if it was a close friend of yours and you saw a big error they were making, wouldn't that be a compromise?

I guess it would depend on the motivation for not addressing the error. If you thought that your friendship depended on avoiding that error, then yes, that's a compromise. But if you ignored the error because you just had other priorities, then no, not a compromise.


Anonymous at 8:50 PM on August 11, 2019 | #13284 | reply | quote

(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)