tommyedison

Members
  • Content count

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tommyedison

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Interests Physics, Math, Chemistry, Engineering, Philosophy
  1. Predicting the Future

    The first has no chance. As to the Boston event - could point to a news item of or summarize what happened? I am unaware of this.
  2. Predicting the Future

    There might be some confusion in regard to this. By D is dead, I meant to say that the D is not the future of the United States. The future of the US is either I or M. And the current trend is towards M - specifically M2.
  3. Predicting the Future

    If that is so then I would recommend the DIM hypothesis course. It proposes that there is a fundamental trichotomy in regard to integration - Disintegration (D), Integration (O) and Misintegration (M). Disintegration is essentially the "many without the one" i.e. a bunch of concretes without any unifying principle. Integration is essentially the "one and the many" which is concretes with a unifying principle (e.g. Objectivism) Misintegration is essentially the "one without the many" which is essentially a floating abstraction unrelated to concretes The D and M naturally have their basis in irrationality while I has its basis in rationality. Note that Dr. Peikoff argues that such a division is present not only in philosophy but in every field from Science to Arts to Politics to History to Child Raising to Education - everywhere. To illustrate the wide presence of such a trichotomy, he offers in his second lecture an example of a soup (I think). He says a soup made with a bunch of ingredients put together without any regard to a principle, juxtaposed in any quantity will result in a soup of very poor taste - This is disintegration since there is no unifying principle for putting the ingredients together. A soup made with a bunch of ingredients put together in the right quantity (i.e. in regard to the principle of making a good soup) will result in a soup of good taste - This is integration. A soup made with the intention of poisoning someone by putting poison in the soup - This is Misintegration i.e. making a whole with regard to a principle detached from reality. Applying this to politics in his lectures, Dr. Peikoff argues that since integration is a prime necessity of human cognition (because without principles, a human being cannot function). Thus disintegration though very harmful is fundamentally powerless to last long because it is against integration. A disintegrated viewpoint cannot hold cultural power - it cannot last very long. Human beings require some abstract principles to function in their lives and as such have a choice between Integration (I) and Misintegration (M). Now in regards to the United States, he argues that the Democrats are the Ds - they are anti-ideological on principle and thus are disintegrated. A disintegration cannot establish a dictatorship. The only chance of a dictatorship is from a Misintegrated ideology (since an integrated ideology would be against dictatorship). And the Christian Republicans today in power are very much the example of a misintegration. The basis of their beliefs and actions is Christianity which is a misintegrated philosophy. Now he makes a distinction in the D and M. He divides them into two groups - The D1 and the D2 and the M1 and the M2. The Ds he says are basically dead for the reasons explained above - they don't have staying power. The I is not prevalent today. The only thing that is prevalent is the M - M1 and M2. M1 is basically basing a rational/secular element on a mystical foundation like the Americans in the 40s for example. M2 is total consistent mysticism (e.g. Communism, Christianity of the Dark Ages, etc.). Dr. Peikoff argues that at this stage of philosophy, one cannot revert to M1 since we are not at the beginning stage of philosophy. At the beginning it was difficult to understand whether God existed or not or whether reason implied atheism. Now however a great many people oriented towards secularism know in some real terms thanks to history that religion and their own outlook are incompatible. In addition, the ones who had the potential to turn to M1 are the very people who are enraged at the D. And they cannot distinguish the D from the I. All they can say is that they are both secular. In the past, M1 could be sustained because of the less knowledge in those times and the absence of D. Thus those outraged at D would eventually choose M2 (consistent mysticism) unless there is a radical philosophical for the I. From this viewpoint M1 is viewed by M2 as a compromising system. This is why he thinks that the future of the United States is M2 (dictatorship) if trends remain the same. Then he offers some data to illustrate the general trend towards M2 in this country. So his opinion on the current trend on the United States, in my judgment, is a product fundamental principles which is supported by many facts which he offers. A lot of what I have said on the application of DIM hypothesis to the United States today is from the 15th lecture part 1. I recommend everyone to listen to it. Any and all errors in misrepresenting Dr. Peikoff's view above are mine
  4. Peikoff on the coming election

    This is what I meant to say: "What matters most is the dominant philosophical trend (increasingly towards Christianity both in the academia and in politics) and the fundamental value orientation of the people (sense of life) and this is precisely what I think we are fast losing. The kind of mysticism seen in the evangelical community would have been impossible two-three generations ago."
  5. Peikoff on the coming election

    Now this is very dangerous since such attitudes are leading to conceptual corruption. Once the meaning of a concept is lost, even people with a healthy sense of life will be unable to defend it.
  6. Peikoff on the coming election

    I really hope that such weakness is limited to liberal hotbeds like NY City. BTW, Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course is available for FREE for a limited time from aynrand.orgLink to news item. Although it is best if one listens to the whole course, I would especially recommend listening to session 15 since that is what really presents his outlook on the US. Peikoff also answers some Q&A in the second part of session 15 the large part of which consists of the '04 election. Unfortunately though, there are no questions about Peikoff's statements about immorality.
  7. Peikoff on the coming election

    I can't and don't presume to speak for Dr. Peikoff and others especially since I have not listened to his DIM hypothesis course. Speaking for myself, I think that the most efficient way to save the US is by spreading O'ism primarily in the academia. Any ounce of effort wasted elsewhere is wrong. However there are many other evils in this country and to the extent that it is possible, one should support the least of the evils which in my judgment are the Democrats. I also don't think that the vote this November or in 2008 will precipitate a Christian theocracy significantly - 5-10 years at the most but that's it. If the Republicans are unable to alter the legal system to their whims right now, they will do it 10 years later. It is the dominant philosophy which guides a country which today is altruism. Unless that is changed, the US has no chance. Electing the Democrats however will prolong somewhat a dictatorship which will translate into increased time for O'ism to spread. In regard to the Islamists - it will also put back the option of total war on the table. Granted, given the state of things, that option is not likely to be implemented but at least there is some chance.
  8. Peikoff on the coming election

    In my above sentence it is wrongly implied that the US government directly or indirectly funded the Al-Qaeda. I meant to say that it funded the mujahideen which later became a part of the al-Qaeda thereby unwittingly increasing the power of the group.
  9. Peikoff on the coming election

    Why do you think they wouldn't have followed Clinton's appeasement? After all, appeasement is all the Republicans have been doing since the 50s except for a few exceptions. Who was it who surrendered American oil fields to the Muslims? Who was it who tolerated the Lebanon bombings? Who was it who sold arms to Iran and supplied money to Afghans which led to the birth of the Al-Qaeda? Who was it who tolerated the Salman Rushdie affair? (Hint: it wasn't the Democrats)
  10. Peikoff on the coming election

    Should be by whom? There are many people who ARE blaming the Democrats for it. And don't you think that the Republicans too deserve a large part of the blame?
  11. Should there be any "ballot measures"?

    Are we talking here of any ideal government or how things should be given the dominant philosophy of our age and the current constitutional setup?
  12. Theocrats for Democrats!

    That is solely a matter of concretes. There is about as much difference between the Shi'a and the Sunni as there is between a Dark Age Muslim and a Dark Age Christian. In terms of fundamentals, they are the same and are equally a threat.
  13. Peikoff on the coming election

    Sure but the Left isn't doing it as a matter of ideology. The Left is anti-ideological. If today we had the 50s Left instead of the hippie Left, the Left would have been a great threat. However because of their hatred of ideas, their nihilism, they are impotent politically. They may increase censorship through the Campaign Finance Reform or the Fairness Doctrine but they don't have the will to establish an explicit system of censorship on the basis of a specific ideology. The Right is different - they are not anti-ideological. And the mainstream Republicans are increasingly accepting an ideology based on the Bible. The Left maybe and probably will be more destructive in the short term but the Right will be much more destructive in the long term.
  14. Peikoff on the coming election

    One more thing - Since the Christians are not right now declaring their intentions to break down you doors with guns they aren't a short term problem. But radical Islam too wasn't a short term problem in the 40s. Just because the Republicans aren't trying to establish Bible-based censorship (except in matters of sexuality), does not mean they won't try it if they think they have a chance say 20-30 years later.
  15. Peikoff on the coming election

    I agree with much of Dr. Peikoff's view except for his charges of immorality. The argument has been made several times that the U.S. had more religion-inspired laws in the past a few more so in the future would not push us into a theocracy. Thus it would be better to vote for the Republicans because we have got a greater chance of defeating fundamentalist Islam with them in charge. In my opinion, this argument is wrong on two levels. Firstly, although the US had more Christianity inspired laws in the past, the American people were generally rational. Religion in the past was mainly an after-effect of the Dark Ages and was a dying force. There was no organized movement for entrenching religion into the government at that time. There was an organized movement for entrenching socialism into our laws. The American people themselves were different at that time. Today a large number of Americans have lost their sense of life. Just as an example, do you think that the American people of the 40's would have stood for the kind of altruistic warfare which is being fought now after a direct major attack by the enemy? Today there is no organized movement for socialism in the US - not like there was in the 30s or the 50s or the 60s. There is however an organized movement for the entrenchment of Christianity into the laws of the country. And that movement is becoming increasingly popular. As for the argument that we have a better chance of winning against the Islamists with the Republicans in charge, I don't think so. The Republicans today aren't fighting a limited, half-hearted war. They are not fighting at all. Diplomacy with Iran is not fighting a war, it is downright surrender. The only difference is that the Republicans are calling their no-war a war while the Democrats would call their no-war a no-war. If Kerry had been elected in '04, the alternatives in the minds of most people wouldn't be the no-war of Republicans vs. the no-war of Democrats, the alternatives would have been a total war vs. the no-war of the Democrats. In the short term the Democrats would have been worse than the Republicans for America. In the long term they would have been better. Similarly today, if the Democrats are elected, there is a chance that the total war alternative would again resurface on the table. If the Republicans are elected, then it is pretty much a guarantee that we will continue the way we are doing today.