Fun with Economics in One Lesson!!
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with Economics in One Lesson!!
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Es99  Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 
|
To you maybe. That you think it isn't a valid model isn't true simply because you happened to state it again.[/quote] Much the way you have stated plenty of things here without actually backing them up. I could however back up what i say if i went into a long scientific and sociological diatribe...but i really can't be arsed. Take, for example, the incomes and lifestyles of say, Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand. Their economic context seems to be doing quite well compared to the rest of the people on this planet. It makes a LOT of sense to them. This is not a point that has any meaning in this conversation. It's merely a statement of what you feel is the case. O'ism fails on two major points: My point is that this is too simplistic and does not actually reflect the reality of the situation. The species would exist with our without a particular individual. They also are part of a more complex interrelation that is entirely dependent on other individuals. One cannot exist without the other. Objectivism is a faint half view of humanity. People are far more complex than you seem to understand. But beyond that, there is nothing in o'ism (or the free market, or simple economics for that matter) that forbids any individual from helping his neighbor, friends, strangers, et cetera. O'ism holds that you are free to think and do as you wish, as long as you do not initiate force against others. Exactly..that is why it is far too simplistic and assumes that all causes and effects can be reduced to such one simple act and consequence. Which means there's certainly nothing in o'ism that prevents anyone from helping their neighbor. There is, however, a proscription about sticking a gun in their face and forcing them to do so. And you fail to see the paradox in what you just wrote?
Yes it does espouse that idea..even if indirectly. Objectivism gets the name from the idea that there is an physical, objective universe around us, that takes primacy no matter what we believe. There is no proof that this is actually the case...and in fact..considering that we are only capable of knowing the universe through our own senses and interpretation of those sentences, there never will be proof. Physics actually suggests that reality changes depending on how we observe it anyway. Meaning that "an A is an A," or "a chair is a chair," no matter how much someone may want or wish otherwise. Similarly, there is no such thing as "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant." In other words, physics comes first, existence exists, no matter what someone feels about it. It does hold, by extension, that humans are capable of learning objective things about the universe, e.g., a chair is a chair, or the sun is x miles away at a given time, et cetera. Not necessarily so. And our view of what a chair is changes as society changes. The laws of physics are not as solid as you might suppose. By extension, o'ism holds that you are free to think as you wish--you do not have to be objective. If you want to believe that "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant" feel free. Go nuts. And since you are not allowed to initiate force against others, you have to live according to the consequences of your beliefs. Say, for example, you think pouring gasoline on seed will make them grow because jeebus said so--you are likely to starve to death. This does not mean, of course, that your o'ist neighbors couldn't choose to to help you, or teach you to use water instead of wasting that gas. It does mean, however, that the gas farmer cannot initiate force against them to make them do it, or to feed him. And what if the person is pouring gas on their crops and poisoning that land for future generations? Indivudual actions in almost most cases have impacts on others. You simply cannot have such freedom because we are not individuals but part of a more complex system. O'ism is totally flawed right from it's foundations. No. I think you have misrepresented science in a lot of your posts. I am well aware that objectivists believe there is a knowable universe that exists outside of our perception. I say that that is in fact not provable and the only thing we do know is that we don't know what the universe really is. You also believe that people can make objective logical choices. This is simply not possible. Reality Internet Personality ID: 770942 ·  |
bobby  Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 
|
2) It believes that humans are somehow capable of objective behaviour. Again. This is nonsense and has been shown to be impossible given our understanding of human development and the human brain. In that case Objectivism is flawed for a different reason. Modern physics does not say existence exists. It does say that A is L (e.g. matter is energy). A vacuum does not exist ("According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence"). The Objectivist view of physics appears stuck in the 19th century, the same period that saw the rise of laissez faire economics. Is this just purely coincidental? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... 
ID: 770950 · |
Rush  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 
|
To you maybe. That you think it isn't a valid model isn't true simply because you happened to state it again. Maybe. As a rule and as I've said before, I usually make the point and follow it with "because" and explain the reasoning behind it. That's the point. If you can't bothered, what, are you readers supposed to take everything at your word? Take, for example, the incomes and lifestyles of say, Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand. Their economic context seems to be doing quite well compared to the rest of the people on this planet. It makes a LOT of sense to them. You said, "They are talking about the individual..but given the complexities of human relationships and sociological drives and needs, the idea of survival of the fittest individual in an economic context makes as little sense as survival of the fittest individual in a biological context." To which I replied the above, that their "economic context" frankly, blows the rest of the planet away. In other words, the idea of survival of the fittest individual in an economic context makes a LOT of sense. I'm not sure of your point here. O'ism recognizes the primacy of the individual, of course, because without the individual, you have nothing. There cannot be a species without individuals. As such, yes they come first. Mothers cannot feed their babies if they are dead, you cannot build a wall or a commune with the rest of the communists if you are dead, et cetera. The individual comes first. No, without individuals, there is no species, period. The individuals MUST put their survival first, as a rule, because if each one of them dies, there cannot be a species--they're all dead. This does not mean 100% of the time, of course. Say when a mother feeds her child, or when you help a friend paint his house. But it does mean, at very minimum, that they MUST keep themselves alive, else nothing else matters. This doesn't mean you cannot rely on other people, or help them or anything else. It means the the primary responsibility is to one's self. But beyond that, there is nothing in o'ism (or the free market, or simple economics for that matter) that forbids any individual from helping his neighbor, friends, strangers, et cetera. O'ism holds that you are free to think and do as you wish, as long as you do not initiate force against others. You may assume that about o'ism, but you certainly haven't studied it much, you're just spouting what you happen you feel about it. It may be far too simplistic to YOU, but they don't care what you think, no do they have to listen to you, just as you don't have to listen to them, or care what they think. It does mean that they have to live with the consequences of their actions, just as you do. Which means there's certainly nothing in o'ism that prevents anyone from helping their neighbor. There is, however, a proscription about sticking a gun in their face and forcing them to do so. No, there is no paradox. Think as you wish, but do not try to force others to think as you think. In other words: help your neighbor if you want to, but you cannot stick a gun in someone else's face to make them help their neighbor. Wrong again. O'ism doesn't get it's name from the idea that humans can be objective, nor does it espouse that idea. Certainly not because you said so. The point was that the universe exists objectively, whether we exist in it or not. If you choose to believe that it does not, or that it's unknowable, that fine too. You can also believe that you can drink gasoline instead of water, that's fine too. But that's a FAR cry from saying that therefore all humans will act objectively--they will not. Objectivism gets the name from the idea that there is an physical, objective universe around us, that takes primacy no matter what we believe. Wow. I really don't know what to you here if this is what you think. I exist. I exist whether you exist or not. The sun exists. It exists whether we do or not. This is a much larger discussion on the topic of epistemology. How do we know what we know, and how do we know it. If there's no proof as you say, well, that is why we look for principles. I exist is a principle. It cannot be derived any further. You are welcome to believe that I do not exist, of course, just as you are welcome to believe that the universe does not exist as well. But again o'ism wouldn't stop you from believing this--it would only prevent you from using force against others to make them believe it, or from forcing them to bail your out if your belief happened to be of great detriment to you--say if a meteor was coming right at your head. They could help if they wanted to, of course. But you would not have the right to force them. Meaning that "an A is an A," or "a chair is a chair," no matter how much someone may want or wish otherwise. Similarly, there is no such thing as "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant." In other words, physics comes first, existence exists, no matter what someone feels about it. It does hold, by extension, that humans are capable of learning objective things about the universe, e.g., a chair is a chair, or the sun is x miles away at a given time, et cetera. If it's "not necessarily so" then why exactly is that, because you happened to state that it isn't so? Again, this goes back to epistemology, here the principle is basically the law of identity. A thing is itself, it cannot be itself and not-itself at the same time, i.e., a person can sit on a chair and a person can sit on an elephant, but the elephant does not become a chair, even though in some sense it is being used as one. Humans have to identify consistent items and concepts, because without doing so, they'll die. A rock is a rock and cannot be eaten to keep someone alive, not matter how many of them he eats, no matter how he wishes otherwise. That the definition of "what a chair is changes as society changes," does not mean that what you have identified as a chair can also be an elephant or a Metallica CD. It cannot, because it is a chair and cannot be anything else. By extension, o'ism holds that you are free to think as you wish--you do not have to be objective. If you want to believe that "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant" feel free. Go nuts. And since you are not allowed to initiate force against others, you have to live according to the consequences of your beliefs. Say, for example, you think pouring gasoline on seed will make them grow because jeebus said so--you are likely to starve to death. This does not mean, of course, that your o'ist neighbors couldn't choose to to help you, or teach you to use water instead of wasting that gas. It does mean, however, that the gas farmer cannot initiate force against them to make them do it, or to feed him. Well, a rational person won't do that because they are destroying their own land. An irrational person might, but you can't stop an irrational person from doing it, no matter what you try to do. Frankly, you won't even stop a rational person from doing it, either, unless you control their minds and their thoughts. Well, so far you've managed to wrong about those foundations, similar to your exhortations about gov't programs being somehow free-market programs. You should have pointed that out then, kinda like I point out the time you referred to a misguided, highly-regulated, and gov't-imposed and controlled education program as if that was some sort of free market or capitalist system. I am well aware that objectivists believe there is a knowable universe that exists outside of our perception. I say that that is in fact not provable and the only thing we do know is that we don't know what the universe really is. That we don't know what it is, in all it's entirety, doesn't mean that we don't exist. It doesn't mean that they laws of thermodynamics do not work. It doesn't mean that gravitational or electromagnetic forces operate on a whim. It means we don't have all the answers, but it does not mean that planes fall from the sky because lift decided not to come to work that day. You see, it doesn't matter whether humans know it all or not, it matters why we know, what we do know. And what we do know governs our lives, no matter what one happens to think about it. You also believe that people can make objective logical choices. This is simply not possible. Ah, now you're telling me what I (or o'ists?) believe. I've never said anything of the sort, I have said that people are free to think and make choices for themselves--and, that by extension, they have to live with the results of those choices, nothing more. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... 
ID: 771002 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
Hey Bobby, nice to see you again. 8^] In that case Objectivism is flawed for a different reason. Modern physics does not say existence exists. It does say that A is L (e.g. matter is energy). A vacuum does not exist ("According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence"). So tell me. That electromagnetic wave. Is it an electromagnetic wave and a chair at the same time? And that particle. Is that actually a particle, or is it an elephant. By extension, no matter what we happen to call the thing that you referred to as a particle, is it that thing, or not? Can it be that thing and not that thing at the same time? Say for example, the thing that we call the wave/particle duality, can it be that thing and not that thing at the same time, or is it that thing, regardless of what we call it? Or take your matter is energy example. Can it be "matter is energy" and not that at the same time? The Objectivist view of physics appears stuck in the 19th century, the same period that saw the rise of laissez faire economics. Is this just purely coincidental? The o'ist view of physics is that physics exists, that's about it. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 771006 · |
Scary Capitalist  Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
[quote]Great book, Rush. Noone will bother to read it though. The easier option is to just point the machine gun nests inwards. Of course they have. Science itself sheds light on this insofar as we know how brain chemistry is localized when emotions like love and happiness are experienced. Additionally, these things like love, sadness, hate, grief, and so on have been well explained in rational theoretical and practical terms and contexts many times before. Unless you're attempting to justify your insistence upon altruism ethics as some sort of non-rational emotional random spurting of your brain juices you don't make much sense to me. If that's your aim I'd fully endorse your claim by the way. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! 
ID: 771008 · |
Jeffrey  Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
I usually make the point and follow it with "because" and explain the reasoning behind it. I usually use captions... ;) (Like this one)  It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 771012 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Science itself sheds light on this insofar as we know how brain chemistry is localized when emotions like love and happiness are experienced. Additionally, these things like love, sadness, hate, grief, and so on have been well explained in rational theoretical and practical terms and contexts many times before. I'll bet you're a big hit with the ladies... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 771015 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Remember, ES99 insists she's not objective all the while relying on her supposedly objective endorsements of scientific discoveries to prove her point that humans are inherently incapable of being objective. This is an intellectually sloppy habit that most people grow out of in their late teens or early 20's. It's a bit dull to sit around arguing with people that aren't sure if they exist or not. It's interesting philosophically because it's demonstrative of why a cohesive systematic approach to the matter entails metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics before discussing politics (economics) is even possible. Philosophy demands an integrated approach. And to anyone in doubt about their own existence I challenge you to try to live one week as if you did not......make no decisions that ordinary rational people would consider to have disastrous and even deadly consequences. This would require the virtue of honesty so I doubt I'll get any takers from this crowd. Surprise surprise! ======================================== in adddendum regarding Objectivism's name itself. Yes, it partially refers to the axiomatic concept that reality is real but it was named for the systematic way in which the various branches of philosophy were integrated properly into an objective whole. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 771017 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Science itself sheds light on this insofar as we know how brain chemistry is localized when emotions like love and happiness are experienced. Additionally, these things like love, sadness, hate, grief, and so on have been well explained in rational theoretical and practical terms and contexts many times before. You, like a broken clock, can be right twice a day Jeffrey. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 771026 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
We are but fragile simple creatures with pretensions to knowledge Noone said this. I only wish that what you improperly claimed was true. Selfishness is a compliment paid to humanity it does not deserve. feel comfortable with a " Classical Newtonian " view of the universe, Noone said this either. It's important to notice that reverse reductionism doesn't work well when combining subatomic particle physics with philosophy. You're never going to use philosophy in conjunction with particle physics to choose a life mate, a job, a war to fight in, or any of various value judgements. The MICRO doesn't magically somehow inflate itself into the MACRO life that we're all living in. If you are basing how you choose your particular nation's political system you're either inept at physics, economics, ethics, or politics, or all of them simultaneously. " Greed ", guided by " Reason " ie " Rational Self Interest ", will maximize Why are you so scared of others that choose of living for their own happiness? You want them to somehow serve you and not themselves. An example of what Neitzche called, "the absurdity of altruism". What do you care? You've already renounced self interest. You now want them to serve YOU....at neglect to themselves. Don't you find this strange? I do. If Gödel's incompleteness theorems proved that there is no consistent set of Mathematics is theory that describes certain and discrete aspects of reality. It's not a subset of anything. But still why you would consider mathematics to hold sway over human behavior and ethics is beyond any rational thinker. Frankly, it's just naieve, juvenile, and strange. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 771035 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
You, like a broken clock, can be right twice a day Jeffrey. Only if you ignored my AM/PM feature, but then I would be a 24hr clock, and that wouldn't work out either... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 771048 · |
Fuzzy Hollynoodles  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
... Yeah, I also have started to wonder who anybody bother. But what do I know? I guess procrastination can have many expressions... "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me 
ID: 771063 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
We are but fragile simple creatures with pretensions to knowledge That's fine. Live as you wish. Think as you wish. You have every right. You don't have the right to initiate force or fraud against anyone else. If you feel comfortable with a " Classical Newtonian " view of the universe, It doesn't matter whether I agree or not. Your thoughts and your mind are your own. Believe you're as significant or insignificant as you want, I don't care. You don't have the right to initiate force or fraud against anyone else. If Gödel's incompleteness theorems proved that there is no consistent set of A lot of you seem to miss the point entirely. Generally, I think there is a "default position for reality," but I'm only using that term because you did. I exist. The sun exists. I must eat to live. I cannot survive 300 bullets passing through me. But here's the point: You don't have to agree with me and I don't care what you think. If you don't feel there is a default position for reality, that's fine. As long as you don't use force or fraud against me or anyone else to make us think as you do, or to bail you out when your beliefs fail you, it doesn't matter. Rush you can berate us Idealists, Artisans, and Gaurdians, all you want with I don't berate you. I don't care what you do. I've told Thorin a million times--it's OK for him to build all the walls he wants. He can get everyone who agrees with him and do so. I'll sell him the bricks and the machine guns and all the concertina wire he could ever afford. You see, he is FREE to live this way if he so chooses. He is not free to force me to think as he does, or live as he does. Ever. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 771226 · |
Dominique  Send message Joined: 3 Mar 05 Posts: 1628 Credit: 74,745 RAC: 0
|
And who is this Noone guy that "Scary Capitalist" keeps mentioning? ==or== Is no one really Noone? ==or== Is it the head guy (Peter Noone) of "Herman's Hermits"? ID: 771285 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
And who is this Noone guy that "Scary Capitalist" keeps mentioning? Well, it's probably Peter Noone. I'm sure he's still running around the country, with Herman's Hermits, entertaining bluehairs. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 771293 · |
|
Fuzzy Hollynoodles Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
And who is this Noone guy that "Scary Capitalist" keeps mentioning? Ahemmm.... My hair wasn't blue, it was violet! And Peter Noone was cute, I played this song a lot back then. "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me
ID: 771342 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
He is not free to force me to think as he does, or live as he does. Ever. I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 771351 · |
|
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3
|
Hey Bobby, nice to see you again. 8^] Thanks, good to see you too. In that case Objectivism is flawed for a different reason. Modern physics does not say existence exists. It does say that A is L (e.g. matter is energy). A vacuum does not exist ("According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence"). Well a vacuum is a vacuum and not a vacuum at the same time, by virtue of the fleeting particles that do not exist, then exist, then do not exist again. And while those particles exist they do exist, hence the Casimir effect. Developing the point Esme made, a single wave/particle is both a particle with mass and volume and co-ordinates in space, and a wave with energy levels that exists across a range. Whether an electron is a particle or a wave depends on how it is being measured, and while it is not being measured it exists in some indeterminate state somewhere between the two. An example of how the act of measurement determines behavior is the double-slit experiment, which will cause an electron to be detectable in isolated positions on a photographic plate the other side of the double-slit apparatus, due to wave frequency interference. Thus when the electron passed though the double slit apparatus it passed through both slits as a wave and when it hits the plate it does so as a particle. Passing another electron through a single slit apparatus will result in it appearing at some point on the photographic plate, but not in isolated positions based upon interference as its wave emerged from a single point rather that two. If you change the double slit apparatus to have detectors at each slit, an electron will only pass through one slit. This behaviour is true of all particles known to physics, they will behave as waves (passing through both slits) or particles (passing through one slit) depending upon the experiment. Objectivism gets the name from the idea that there is an physical, objective universe around us, that takes primacy no matter what we believe. Meaning that "an A is an A," or "a chair is a chair," no matter how much someone may want or wish otherwise. Similarly, there is no such thing as "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant." In other words, physics comes first, existence exists, no matter what someone feels about it. It does hold, by extension, that humans are capable of learning objective things about the universe, e.g., a chair is a chair, or the sun is x miles away at a given time, et cetera. "Existence exists" sounds common sensical, but then so does, "liquids do not run uphill", trouble is, in the real world fluids do run uphill. Or take your matter is energy example. Can it be "matter is energy" and not that at the same time? Well, the search is on for Exotic Matter which might meet the criteria of being both matter and not matter simultaneously. But, as noted earlier, a particle is both a wave and not a wave at the same time. The Objectivist view of physics appears stuck in the 19th century, the same period that saw the rise of laissez faire economics. Is this just purely coincidental? Fair enough, but Objectivism cannot rely on physics as a basis to justify its position that there is an objective universe. It may be its philosophical position, but it is not one I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
ID: 771527 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
So tell me. That electromagnetic wave. Is it an electromagnetic wave and a chair at the same time? And that particle. Is that actually a particle, or is it an elephant. By extension, no matter what we happen to call the thing that you referred to as a particle, is it that thing, or not? Can it be that thing and not that thing at the same time? Say for example, the thing that we call the wave/particle duality, can it be that thing and not that thing at the same time, or is it that thing, regardless of what we call it? You're missing the point, you're focusing on the terms and definitions we are giving something as if they make it what it is. It doesn't matter what we call it, does the thing or system that we call a vacuum (with the particles popping back and forth) exist as it is (whatever that may be, or whatever we decide to call it) or can it be something else at the same time? Can you be you and Ethel Merman at the same time? Developing the point Esme made, a single wave/particle is both a particle with mass and volume and co-ordinates in space, and a wave with energy levels that exists across a range. Whether an electron is a particle or a wave depends on how it is being measured, and while it is not being measured it exists in some indeterminate state somewhere between the two. Maybe this will work: but is it what it is? No matter what we call it, no matter what it's doing, is it itself? >snip the single particle interference experiment< To be clear though, the law of identity is a philosophical principle created long before Ayn Rand was born. Objectivism gets the name from the idea that there is an physical, objective universe around us, that takes primacy no matter what we believe. Meaning that "an A is an A," or "a chair is a chair," no matter how much someone may want or wish otherwise. Similarly, there is no such thing as "A is L," or "a chair is an elephant." In other words, physics comes first, existence exists, no matter what someone feels about it. It does hold, by extension, that humans are capable of learning objective things about the universe, e.g., a chair is a chair, or the sun is x miles away at a given time, et cetera. It's not meant to sound common-sensical, Bobby. It's a principle that the o'ist and many other philosophies use. You exist. If you don't exist, or if I don't exist, nothing else matters. It's similar to the primacy of the individual point made earlier. An individual must exist before there can be a species, because without x number of individuals there cannot be any species. Similarly, you and I must exist, because if we do not, there are no philosophies. Or anything else for that matter. If you wish to take the position that you are not you, that you cannot possibly know who you are because you can't explain the entire universe, then we have nothing to discuss. Or take your matter is energy example. Can it be "matter is energy" and not that at the same time? Right, but it is what it is, regardless of what we call it. We happen to use "matter" and "not-matter" because that's how physics presents to our senses. It is what it is regardless of how it operates or how we see it in the classical sense. The o'ist view of physics is that physics exists, that's about it. Do you even know what a principle is? Do you understand the difference between using physics to justify that there is a universe and why human beings have to find and use principles to live and to describe the universe around them? Frankly, this is the problem with discussing o'ism, or Marxism, or whateverism, or referring to Marx, or Rand, or whoever in the sense that the discussion should be about simple economics and how that is a part of our everyday life. What it becomes is a discussion like this one--of the various tenets of the whateverism, as if that has any bearing on the discussion of Economics in One Lesson. Which is why, as a rule, I don't bring up personalities, or philosophies, or whatnot, it's a waste of time. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 771561 · |
|
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0
|
And who is this Noone guy that "Scary Capitalist" keeps mentioning? lol..My dad used to drive them to their gigs. Reality Internet Personality ID: 771606 · |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.