tommyedison
Members-
Content count
351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tommyedison
-
-
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.
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.
-
If possible, I'd like to focus this discussion on epistemological issues and principles that can be objectively defended, and specifically, how to use those principles to make predictions in the sphere of politics with respect to actions that people take.
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
-
What matters most is 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.
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."
-
The type of attitude displayed at the summer camp is not out of the mainstream of the Christian community. Close to half of the US population, 45%, believes that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. That is utterly irrational.
I don't think such concretes are very relevant to the political scenario. What matters most is 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.
Where are so many people getting these ideas, if not from the conservative Christian community? A considerable, growing number also believe that the US constitution is a biblical document or that the US was founded on biblical ideas, including prominent people like Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.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.
-
I always hear Democratic sympathizer friends of mine say how much they hate the Iraq War. Why don't they all loudly demand a North Korean invasion, and blame Bush for not being assertive enough? They are always quiet after I ask them that. Because what they really hate is not a half-done show of assertiveness, but a show of assertiveness period. That's some really fundamental corruption.
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.
-
And if you are convinced that the Democrats are less bad, then why not promote them?
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.
-
Who was it who sold arms to Iran and supplied money to Afghans which led to the birth of the Al-Qaeda?
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.
-
Thank you for proving my point. Promoting Objectivism, not toppling the Republicans by bringing the Democrats to power, is what can save this country. And given the Democrats' record on PC speech codes, it will be harded to promote Objectivism on campus under the Democrats.
Presuming that the "Fairness Doctrine" is reimplemented (though I doubt it even with a Democratic control of the Congress), how do you think that will significantly affect the promotion of O'ism on campus?
Further, Dr. Peikoff argued in '04 (and I presume he has not changed any part of his opinion) that Bush was working for a massive entrenchment of religion into our political system for instance through government sponsorship of religion. Further, he has massively energized the fundamentalist base to work for religion-inspired laws into the government. I don't think such laws will be in principle the same as they were in the 40s.
For one thing, Bush is entrenching religion at the federal level. More importantly, in the 40s, religion was a dying force. Today, fundamentalist religion is a rising force.
I doubt that the Christian fundamentalists will stop at abortion. Once it is banned, they will undoubtedly clamor for explicit censorship based on ideology - something the Democrats will never clamor for because they are anti-ideological on principle.
So the concretes may be similar to previous times for a while but the fundamental principles behind them and the direction in which those principles lead to are quite different.
If the resolve weakened later, than the strategy did not work.
At least it brought back the correct alternative back on the table - at least for a while. However if the Republicans remain in power, there is absolutely NO hope of the correct alternative ever being put on the table.
Certainly not for the price of having the Clinton Administration for security policy.
And how and why do you think that a Republican Administration would have had a better security policy that would have prevented 9/11. Keep in mind that the first WTC bombings occurred in 1993 - soon after Bush I lost office.
Should be by those who think the Democrats can't possibly be worse than the Republicans. And, no, I don't think the Republicans deserve a large part of the blame. They wouldn't have followed Clinton's eight-year legacy of passivity and appeasement.
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)
-
If, as Dr. Peikoff claims, the stakes are that high and the only way to save the U.S. is to topple the Republicans, then the act of voting is far from sufficient. One had to campaign vigorously for the Democrats over the last few months. One had to donate as much as he could afford to the Democrat Party. Objectivists had to organize under the banner “Objectivists for the Democrats” (similarly to the “Libertarians for Bush” in 2004) and promote their views. Simply casting one’s vote is no more than a symbolic act. I would ask those who agree with Dr. Peikoff and intend to vote for the Democrats: What have you done to promote the Democrats over the last few months?
Perhaps those energies are better directed elsewhere?
After all, the actual act of voting doesn't require much effort. Vigorously promoting the Democrats would require a lot of energy - energy that could be directed elsewhere such as in promoting Objectivism.
I do not think that the only way to save the U.S. is to topple the Republicans by bringing the Democrats to power. Back in 1992, I was convinced by Dr. Peikoff’s arguments in favor of voting for Clinton. I am afraid that his predictions did not come true. The Republicans did not learn their lesson and improved their ways.
I am unfamiliar with the arguments of Dr. Peikoff for Clinton. Did he argue that the Republicans would correct their big government tendencies? If that is so, then I would say that the Republicans did realize their mistakes somewhat - the Gringrich "revolutionaries" won 1994 on the platform of reducing government even though the resolve weakened later.
The horrors of 9/11 are not blamed on the Democrats (as they should be).
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?
-
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?
-
And it certainly works. You will never see a story about the Saudi threat, or the Pakistani threat, but you will frequently see scary montages about Iran and North Korea.
Don't forget that if it weren't for Iran (the country that isn't engaging in deception), none of these countries (Pakistan, SA) would ever have the will to attack or criticize the United States.
Deception may be useful in the limited context of a full scale war. But in the context of a war between good and evil, ideas play a very important role and as the recent events have shown, a much more important role than any deception. No amount of deception will fetch you the victory which winning the war of ideas can fetch you for the simple reason that ideas determine the way you think.
Unfortunately, most people don't even bother finding out simple facts such as that Iran is primarily Shi'a, whereas al Qaeda finds common cause with the Sunnis in SA.
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.
-
But observe just who is instigating politically correct speech codes, forceably shouting down and threatening speakers on college campuses, promulgating "campaign finance reform," working for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio and TV, and trying to regulate the internet. It's the Left.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Perhaps this quote will be helpful.
She said that her characterization of Toohey involved a certain degree of poetic license—that in real life, Toohey would have had to evade more and be less explicit to himself about his corrupt ideas. He couldn't act on them, she noted, if he said to himself: "All I want is destruction, as an end in itself; I am depraved." This is what Toohey thought, but she brought it out into the open, without evasions and defenses; so in that sense it was a literary device. Her view is that if you know the good, you do have to act on it—unless you evade it.
-
If it were a secular ideology, such as Nazism, would we have any problem going after their gathering places, or taking out locations that matter to them?
North Korean Communism (secular, atheist), China (supporter of Iran, NK, etc), Russia (supporter of Iran, NK, Syria, etc) all secular and actively harming the national security of the US yet the US is afraid to go after any of them.
(Actually, given the state of things, maybe so, but the religious element is certainly important to getting us to
treat them with kid gloves.)
I now doubt it as much the religious element as the mystic one. The more mystic our enemy is, the more we treat him with kid gloves.
-
This poll was taken nearly two months ago. It is the last poll I recall on the issue of Iran.
Americans growing nervous about role of Iran in terror
[bold mine]And Americans are now most aware of the Iranian role in promoting fascism: 58 percent in the poll think Iran is now the "main promoter of Islamic fascism in the Middle East," and 76 percent believe Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons "at any cost."
Although I doubt the actual number actually is that high, here's hoping that this signals a long term change in attitude towards the Islamofascists.
-
Let's agree on the facts here, Roark did not consciously theorize about his choice to sleep with Dominique, either philosophically or psychologically.
It is not explicitly stated in the novel, no.
Without having any conscious idea about what it was about her that attracted him, and without the slightest interest in poking into his subconscious to fish these things out.
How do you know that?
His philosophical interest begins to show only at the end of the book,
Then why was he interested in the principle behind the Dean right at the beginning of the book?
Roark is not a philosopher, so it's obviously okay if these questions don't interest him.
Philosopher or not, one should be able to name the reasons behind one's every action - especially when it involves something as important as sex.
-
A person has many options as to how he will group and classify the entities he encounters, but ultimately his purpose is the main guiding factor. If he wants to survive on a battlefield, he will classify other persons as friend or foe.
True enough. And friend does not mean anyone who is approxiamately a friend or someone in the middle of friend or foe. Every friend (or foe) has to share some characteristics and those characteristics must be present in all friends (or foes).
Even with regard to a generally agreed upon existing concept like "man," different purposes may result in different results. Someone wishing a high-level intellectual discussion may regard a brutish, rude, ignorant person as not human enough, while a medical doctor doing organ transplants might regard a baby born without a brain as definitely human since, for his purposes, all its other organs are the same as a normal human being's.
I don't know about the second case since it may be a borderline case, but for the first case, can you provide a few examples where a brutish person was classified as a non-man. Concepts are formed by observing similarities and differences between existents and omitting the specific measurements of certain characteristics of the concept. What measurements of what characteristics have to be omitted depends on the purpose (e.g. in a battlefield, you may omit specific measurements of gender, height, etc. while when looking for a wife/husband, you would not).
However in no case does a unit of the concept NOT share all the characteristics subsumed by the concept.
-
You have the concept animal. Do you need other concepts like dog or man? If you think you do need those concepts, then what need (purpose) are they serving? In other words, why not pet your (four-legged) animal (that barks) and look for a job working with a (two-legged) animal (that speaks and thinks)? Would the concept animal be sufficient?
The difference a human being makes in one's life (whether for the good or for the bad) is extremely different from that of an animal in general. The contexts are vastly different which is why I think we need the new concept.
But once you have formed the new concept (say a table), observe that a table is not any existent which shares its overwhelming characteristics with the characterstics subsumed by the concept "table". Any unit of the concept "table" has all the characteristics subsumed by the concept "table".
-
If he finds an entity that doesn't obviously fit into his existing scheme -- like the house elf -- he may have to decide whether it serves his purpose to regard it as something like Mommy and Daddy or not. If it does, it will become a unit of his concept of "man." If it doesn't, it won't.
What do you mean by "serves his purpose"?
Could you provide a concrete situation where an existent X is regarded as the unit of a concept A (with which it shares most but not all characteristics) because it serves the purpose Y for a man?
-
What do you mean by "not included in"? Does that mean the same as "not subsumed by"?
By "a characteristic is not included in the concept", I mean that the referents of the concept do not have that characteristic.
So when I say that the specific measurements of height, etc. are not included in the concept "chair" for example, I mean that the referents of the concept chair will have definite measurements of height, etc. but those measurements are not specified.
When I say that the "back of the chair" is included in the concept chair, I mean that the referents of the concept chair will have the characteristic "back of the chair".
-
I am unsure what you are saying. Would you give an example? Following is my attempt at an example illustrating the existence of measurable characteristics of a unit -- and their omission in the concept-formation process:
- One unit (a chair) is hard, dark colored, and five feet high.
- Another unit is soft, light colored, and three feet high.
- A third unit is medium soft, medium colored, and one foot high (for a child).
When I form the concept chair, I do so by looking for the essential defining characteristics (such as shape and function or whatever), while omitting measurements of its characteristics (color intensity, depth, height of its back, number of legs, cushiness, and so forth), both the essential ones and the inessential ones.
All the characteristics of all chairs are measurable. To form a concept, I omit the measurements and concentrate on the characteristics that both cause the entity to be what it is and distinguish it from other things of the same general kind. Once the concept is formed, as well as before concept formation, the entities subsumed have and will always have measurable characteristics.
Is that what you are saying?
I think so. To take your example, a unit of the concept chair can have any varied number of specific measurements. For example, they can have any combination of height, color, etc. Notice however that you cannot have a chair without its back. A chair without its back is not a qualified instance of chair - it becomes a stool.
The characteristic "back of the chair" is included in the concept "chair". An existent which does not have this characteristic cannot be a unit of the concept "chair".
The specific measurements such as height of the back, the color, etc. are not included in the concept "chair". An existent can have any variety of the specific measurements of these characteristics, but as long as it has all the characteristics of a chair, it remains a chair.
Mrs. Speicher - If I understand your position correctly, are you saying that provided a given existent shares the overwhelming number of characteristics (including the essential distinguishing ones) with a particular concept, but does not share all of the characteristics, then whether that existent is classified under the concept in question or not is dependent on the purpose?
(Please correct me if I am wrong)
-
"Too great" -- for what?
The context matters and determines what is or is not "too great."
The concept man includes the characteristic that man reasons by means of a brain.
Concepts are mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.
I have always taken this to mean (And please correct me if I am wrong), that units are measured instances of a concept.
If the characteristic brain is included in the concept man, then I can't understand, how an existent, who shares all its characteristics with man except that the existent does not have a brain, can be a measured instance of the concept man?
Predicting the Future
in Metaphysics & Epistemology
Posted · Report post
I can't say anything about the correctness of DIM since I haven't listened to the whole course. I was only trying to present Dr. Peikoff's viewpoint and stating that I thought that his viewpoint was a product of fundamental principles.
I would classify environmentalism as an also-ran. Granted that many leftists are environmentalists and a select few are constantly trying to make news headlines about environmentalism, environmentalism simply does not inspire the general public. The public, because of inertia may vote for some or even many evil environmentalist proposals but the public is not going to submit to an environmentalist dictatorship.
And anyway, Republicans too are now starting to adopt environmentalism.
Speaking solely of political trends, the only major trend in the political sphere is towards Christianity.
How is that relevant to predicting the future political trends?
Who is "wasting time" on encouraging Objectivists? I haven't seen any prominent Objectivist intellectual actively campaigning to vote for the Democrats.
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.