• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oleksandr

  1. Question about Anthem

    I'm curious of the following passage from Anthem (pg.42-43 Centennial Edition): Judging from the context there is more here than some specific meaning or event that isn't mentioned in the story. There is some abstract idea at play here. Does anybody know of any resources that shine light on this part. Or simply came up with an answer by yourself?
  2. An update: I have become very fond of the game idea described in the book Aristotle Reaction by RogerW. I categorize it as "Simulation of Philosophy's Influence on History." I'm currently implementing a simple version of it for one of my graduate classes (Computation Cognitive Science).
  3. Doctrine of the Mean

    Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_E...The_Golden_Mean
  4. Doctrine of the Mean

    I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy) Looks pretty bad with the idea of moderation between "extremes."
  5. What is Justice

    Or is this one of those contexts?
  6. I'm indeed interested. See your own thread for my post there.Just one small note (for myself, mainly): your idea may not take millions to implement, since it won't require to pay millions for graphics and physics, but boy is it hard to implement well. It would take some serious mental effort to conceptualize all the required relations and implement those well. My mind is boggled by them currently.
  7. The Aristotle Reaction Chronicles

    Alright, I finished reading the whole thing. Very well written. Too bad, there isn't more for now. ---- But back to the software part of this. Incidentally, I had somewhat similar thoughts of a same project but dismissed it in not knowing a good way to make it exciting to play. I used to play http://www.nationstates.net/ in the past a bit, so I'm familiar with a very distant idea to your project. Have you seen that game? It is somewhat similar on some small aspects. But your idea is much more fun. Adaptive questions, real-time decision making, statistics per group. This is great stuff, though, it's a hell to implement. In the story, it looks like the game has millions of questions and smart branching out and detection. Additional, only able to influence some ideas means that you would need several layers of abstractions to simulate the whole thing: influence choices -> people's ideas -> actions -> results in the game world -> statistics. Not an easy task for sure, especially, since it's real-time. I'm interested to hear more of the actual implementation behind the game that you said you have achieved if you don't mind sharing it with me. Feel free to send PMs if you prefer.
  8. The Aristotle Reaction Chronicles

    I've not finished reading the whole thing, but it's awesome. And my programming fingers are tingling all over to implement such a simulation. It sounds like quite a challenge. The description of the game is superb! I'm highly curious what part of this you were able to implement. I'll check for answers in this thread once I'm done reading it.
  9. Finally, the website is up again: http://ox.slug.louisville.edu/~o0lozi01/wi...x.php/Main_Page Here's the development information: http://ox.slug.louisville.edu/~o0lozi01/wi...e2:_Development
  10. The server is partially up. Here's one of the demos: http://ox.slug.louisville.edu/~o0lozi01/up...mble2_proof.zip
  11. The server that describes all this information is currently down, so I'll just summarize.Some partial information is here, though: http://shite.homelinux.org/ur2/wiki That isn't actually a game. For now, it's just a technical implementation of an idea of mine. It runs on both Windows and Linux. I used C++ and libraries, such as: OPAL, OGRE3D, Fmod, and RakNet. The server that's down contained some demos. Once it's up I'll provide a link.
  12. The Moral Legitimacy of the State

    So, let's see if I got this right: If following your understanding of rights, the state of human society falls into a jungle with guns fights behind every corner, this is fine, and you wouldn't have any problems? This used to be a basic problem with rights in the history of philosophy. The question was: should strive to follow rights or to achieve some goal? This means the question was: if following rights, humans can't live, should we follow rights? OR if disregarding rights, humans can live, should we disregard rights? The question is actually flawed. It separates theory from practice. A theory that doesn't work in practice is a wrong theory, and one has to check his premises for errors. The fact of the matter is that rights are derived from looking what is required for a human to live qua human. If a society your propose with your "rights" falls into a state where humans can't live, would you agree that there must be a problem somewhere with your "rights"?
  13. The Moral Legitimacy of the State

    That was an Objectivist lawer in Canada who is the president of Freedom Party in Orlando. He recently (last year) ran for political seats there (not sure which exactly). He got a lot of media exposure. You can find videos from his party media exposure: http://www.youtube.com/user/fpontario If only USA had something like this.
  14. The Moral Legitimacy of the State

    Here's a good explanation (youtube video) on this argument. IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 2 - Anarchism
  15. Happy Birthday to Nate Smith

    Congrats, Nate.
  16. I have recently saw another same old brainwashing on one of web pages of my college, and finally got fed up, and sent a complaint letter to my college's departments. I'm reprinting it here. P.S. UofL stands for University of Louisville
  17. My Complaint Letter to My College

    What is the tactic number 4? (It's missing in your list.)
  18. The Psychological Value of a Self-Concept

    Your browser still has to download the file to a temporary folder even if you can't save the file yourself.And Internet provider charges for information sent to your computer, not how much files you have chosen to save to your disk. I hope that clears it up.
  19. The Psychological Value of a Self-Concept

    Good stuff. I watched it all. Thanks.
  20. Lapses in the process of self-improvement

    I'm going to pick on you here. Rationalistic deductions aren't good anywhere. But of course, you meant it anyway.
  21. What is Justice

    (While Paul is away, I'll let myself speak for him based on his posts.) I think what Paul meant was to ask you how your statements do not logically lead to a conclusion that your version of justice is independent of epistemology or morality. I don't think he meant to state that your version leads there, but instead asked you to show how it doesn't. I would be interested in such explanation myself.
  22. What is Justice

    because value is something one gets or gives. How then can you say that justice is when a person "receives" what he ought to receive? This mean that whatever another individual was trying to achieve (when giving the treatment) based on his rational choice could still lead to injustice (though of a different kind according to you, I realize that). (Yes, I realize you think that such person could still be just.) However, values are tied to evaluations of an individual. How can then your value of justice be considered if it doesn't take into account the evaluation of an individual who gives the treatment? (I refer to treatment in your quote "I meant when someone gets treated as they deserve.") So, I'm still confused how what you are described isn't purely "get"-concept as I described in my post.
  23. What is Justice

    bborg, I made a post in reply to yours a while ago here in this thread, but never got a reply from you on it. I'm referring to post #13. Would you mind commenting on it?
  24. What is Justice

    Your statement does not cover the definition you and Ifatart are using. This statement only covers actions of an individual. However, you have also answered positively to my question of "If that's justice then can one say that it's also unjust when an artist wasn't properly recognized in his time?" However, this questions is NOT about objective evaluation. For example, it's quite possible that some people didn't like rational art during the life time of the artist, and thus they didn't recognize him or care about his art. Or, his art simple didn't get around to rational people. So in such case even though people of the artist's time followed their objective evaluation, can _you_ say that it was unjust that that artist was not recognized in his time? To be clear: keep in mind I do not ask if an individual should recognize that artist given the evidence for the artist's importance. I already agree with that. It is included in my understanding of justice. What I'm asking is: is there such a thing as second meaning of justice as discussed in this thread. 1st meaning: "One should _give_ proper judgments to people." (that's my meaning) 2nd meaning: "One should _get_ proper treatment from other people." (this is the meaning of justice that I disagree with.) So, the essential difference between two meanings is give versus get. That's what my previous posts were about. "Give" involves objective judgment (in the case of Objectivist definition). "Get" doesn't involve that. It simply states that one ought to get good treatment. My problem with "get" version of justice is that it sounds detached from individual judgment, and instead becomes some expected justice about the reality itself.
  25. What is Justice

    Interestingly, Ayn Rand lexicon doesn't mention justice outside of objective evaluation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/justice.html So, according to that, there is no such concept of 'justice' as "good men get good treatment," since it doesn't contain any reference to "objective evaluation."