• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. But on a more serious note, nothing happened to Cheney for example. Maybe I should Cheney more, but seems to be pretty unscathed from everything he did.
  2. Yeah, that's exactly it - I guess I'm just not aware of the fear that they experience. I mean, these people seem to be so brazzen with their actions, as if they know they won't ever get caught - like ever. It really seems like they don't feel fear of their actions. But, I can't possibly know what they feel. I know Rand's ethics isn't the same as karma, but I do wish these people had it coming to them in the external world too. I wish Bush was actually hit the shoe for example, lol.
  3. I really enjoy Rand's work, but something that has been bothering me is how does Rand's ethics apply to a psychopath who seems to actually get away with evil, even in the long-term? I think with most people, especially non-psychopaths, Rand's ethics works out pretty well. Things like guilt, shame, regret, etc. are definitely not things that benefit one's rational self-interest, so committing evils that causes these emotions would not be a good thing to do for a non-psychopath. So what of the psychopath? Yes, there's a dumb psycopaths that can't escape reality anyway. They do eventually get caught if they murder someone for example, and they can't escape what they've done just as the non-psychpath - they will have to behave differently as a result of the murder than they would otherwise, liking being on the run, constantly having to lie, and so on. I realize that most psychopaths still can't escape rand's ethics and show that she's still right. But... how does that explain the psychopath who has no need to worry? This is not a straw man argument - at least I hope it's not - but there's seems to be people, however few, that to get away with a great amount of evil and they live well until the end of their days. Some of these people are the most well-connected and powerful in the political sphere, and they are basically untouchable. They figured seemed to really figure out how to avoid the negative consequences of reality. Maybe this is a straw man after all - I can't really gleem into the mind of an evil, powerful, well-connected psychopath... maybe they have a whole lost of problems I am not aware of - but I just don't understand why so many powerful people don't have it coming to them, and they seem to have everything in life. It seems that by living an alternative to Rand's ethics - a drastically different one in fact - they have prospered anyway. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.
  4. Metaphysics questions about infinity

    Actually, that is exactly what I meant. In software, we don't just model method and procedures. Maybe they did 30+ years ago, but we actual model entities/concepts first, as well as hierarchies and all kinds of things that are extremely similar to the way Ayn Rand describes entities in metaphysics and concepts in epistemology. Entities in software (called classes) have attributes and behaviour. Good software design mirrors what happens in reality the best it can, although we usually take a snapshot of the things that are of interest to the program and not everything. So, in such a computer program, time would in fact be in the entity 'Existence'
  5. Metaphysics questions about infinity

    I have a hard time with this, because I think my world would be much better if the people around me were more rational. I will have to learn when it's time to jump ship next time rather than invest so much, because no good comes out of it other than frustration and wasted time, which you are totally correct. Thanks for the insights and tips!
  6. "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment"

    That's a very tricky position. Using this logic, you would argue that it's okay to use the welfare system if you once had a job and paid your taxes. "Well, I didn't support the decision, but now that's there, you can't fault me for using it, can you?" The argument could be, "Well, I'm just getting a smaller portion of my own money back... and if they didn't take my money through forced taxes, I wouldn't even need the welfare in the first place." Still, I'm sure a lot of Objectivists would not take the welfare on princple.

    Perhaps what he's saying is that since other candidates competing for his job have to spend the money using campaign donations and not government funds, should the same standard also apply to current president in office? I guess what he's saying is, "why does obama or any other president get an exception when he's not actually WORKING?" If anything, would these little advantages make an unfair election?
  8. I say yes, know as much as you can. You need be familiar with them and be able to recognize them instantly so you have ammunition to blast their ideas or protect yourself when such interactions happen (and man, they do happen!)
  9. I recently came across a person I was debating with, and I think a pretty good job explaining the points, but I wanted to be sure if my responses were truthful and accurate. This person claimed that it's "statistically impossible" for life, matter, etc. be created. He's one of those fine-tuned universe guys, and because of that theory lends itself to a creator, be believes in god. I am not a physics guy, so I simply asked him, "what evidence do you have to support that it is statistically impossible?" He goes on to talk about how all these constants, like the cosmological constant, needed to be exactly as they are in order for the universe to exist as it is today. He concluded that since it's a "statistical impossibility", it would take an infinite number of chances to reach it, and thus is not possible. I stopped him right there, because even assuming that his premise is correct, 1 out of a "very large number" is still not infinitely small, it's just " a very small chance". Now I don't know much about this, but if there's multiple chances for this to happen, and nobody's around to observe it... eventually it would happen right? But it doesn't stop there. He showed no evidence that these constants could be anything other than what they are in the first place. He's assuming that by chance they could be anything at all. Again, he showed no proof of this. I asked him, what are you axioms? He said the same as mine (existence and consciousness). But he says it's not enough for philosophy to simply take for granted that things exists, it needs to explain "why". I stopped him there and said, "No, that's the job of science, not philosophy." I proceeded to give him many examples and proofs that just because we don't know why doesn't mean the axioms and the proofs built on the axioms are in any invalidated. In fact, if we should learn the "why", all of the philosophical knowledge would still be correct. Of course, he doesn't accept this. He goes into multiverse theory, and says it's logically necessary. I ask him, is multiverse theory proven? He says it is, but we looked on wikipedia and it only acknowledges that it's "hypothetical" at best. I guess that's one more point for me. He was basing all kinds of proofs on top of multiverse theory, which fall apart because multiverse theory isn't proven. Then he goes on to say, "Evolution is hypothetical too, so they are both proven". Except I reminded him that evolution has perception going for it, not to mention that we can analyze really old fossils and know that certain life forms did not exist like they do today. Oh, we also this thing called "dna" and "the study of genetics" which overwhelmingly points the validation of evolution. So I told him, "No, they aren't even the same league". I mean, let's consider the fact that our consciousness, according to him, cannot perceive these other existences in the multiverse. So even though we can't even perceive them, let alone rationally prove it... he wants to take it as fact. Yeah right. And then began to blast me that "my philosophy assumes god does not exist and works from there". And I had to explain to him, from the ground up, that it makes no such assumption. In fact, there is no proof per say because 'god' would be an anti-concept - nothing in reality even suggests that such a being exists in the first place. I guess the conversation was running in circles, but I was wondering if you have some points that are so clear to shut this down much more easily than I could. Thanks!