• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


anthony last won the day on October 30

anthony had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

1 Follower

About anthony

  • Rank
    tony garland

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
  • Description
    My all-time quote: "Man is a being of self-made soul."
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

17,980 profile views
  1. anthony

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    I covered that, and you missed it. I said: "One higher than the other to finely adjust for the differing diameters". I did ask you to roll a bottle along a surface, say the floor, and observe. It runs straight - right? Meaning, logically, the smaller diameter of the neck has ~zilch~ to do with the rotation of the entire bottle. Now, take that to the two tracks. If and when it is perfectly aligned and balanced on its levels on two tracks, the bottle must turn as it would on a flat surface. Yes? If not, why not? (And clearly, frictional resistance, air resistance, gravity does not fall within the bounds of the "Paradox") . Anyhow, it is not clear - and superfluous - that that line is a second "track", or simply the path of travel. But in controlled laboratory conditions, two tracks will work equally well. Really, I don't know why nobody gets this. I think context has constantly been dropped by focusing too closely on the inner (fixed, attached) wheel. As I keep repeating, the inner wheel/circle must move (laterally) the identical distance the outer one does!! (Or else, we can never trust a wheel again - they will break apart). 20 meters or 0.5 meter; a partial revolution - or a dozen revolutions - no difference. Fact remains: Each, single inner point and circle within the main wheel body will traverse precisely 20m or 0.5m - or whatever - as well. The inner line of travel in the paradox diagram will be the same for every internal circle, starting and ending at the same place. The clever placement and length of the inner line wrt. to the inner circle's circumference creates the illusion of a paradox. But *all* lines connecting all inner points from their beginning of motion to their rest, must always be that same length! (For any given circle and forward motion).I.e. the same length as the big wheel's total travel. The inner wheel is not an independent entity! Its circumference has no bearing on the larger context. Its motion and travel is extraneous to the main wheel - and must be considered only within the greater context of the larger entity. I think this confusion between logic and fact, or, putting the theoretical in conflict with the evidence of our senses, seems to point to the old (false) dichotomy, Analytic vs Synthetic. That's well overturned by objectivity and Objectivism. Smart fellow, Aristotle, wasn't he?
  2. anthony

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Well, no. A smaller circle fixed within a bigger one - both will rotate evenly and in coordination, due to the rotational speed of the small one being lesser. Fairly commonsensical: The larger circumference has further to travel, circularly, to complete a revolution and must turn faster. That's why a wheel acts as a wheel - no internal contradictions like distance traveled, as is suggested by the Paradox, but keeping structural integrity. Try rolling an even-sided bottle you have marked with a lengthwise line from the top of the neck, to the bottom, along a table top, and you'll see the entire line revolves in synch and the entire bottle will roll straight (the neck is out of contact with the table, but that's irrelevant). There used to be simple merry-go-rounds in parks, I've not noticed many, lately. A large round metal platform centered on a hub. You give a handle a shove to spin it, and jump on. As kids we knew that standing near the edge, one goes faster, while relatively slower when one moves in towards the middle. I'm just demonstrating physically the variable circular velocity in a wheel - velocity dependent on the distance along the axis from center to circumference. The speeds can be calculated by a math formula. (As final authority, we have always got the reality of wheels and circles in motion to refer to and look at. Anything posited which contradicts what one has induced-integrated from what one sees and knows of them, HAS to be in error (at least, a non-paradox). As for the math principles, they have to be derived from the facts, not fit facts to theory).
  3. anthony

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    A sort-of 'rule of circles' everyone learns by inductive experience is that whatever a circle or wheel does - in direction, rotation and velocity - determines what any inner points or circles will do. The integrity of a wheel/circle holds true in every real-life experience of them. You see it with a teacup in a rotating saucer, a spinning frisbee, and car wheels, and so on. Turn the wheel once, or 20 times, everything within the wheel circumference rotates likewise (or proportionately, as for rotational speed) - and must finish up in the same position relative to outer rim and to the surface, as it began. So here we're given a diagram which supposedly shows (or suggests) that an inner circle - of obviously smaller circumference - tracks/traces a path which is greater than its own circumference (and equal to that of the large wheel or circle). How can this be? If one fixates on this inner line, this looks paradoxical, forgetting the "rule" - by which the wheel's travel is totally dictated by the outer rim, and that everything within, obeys.. E.g. Take an empty (featureless) circle or wheel and mark a point at random anywhere: inside its perimeter, at the center, or on its circumference, that's immaterial, and then rotate the wheel once--we'll see the start to finish line of travel will ALWAYS be the same length. Do that dozens of times in this same circle and all the lines will remain equal, so the information suggested by the "Paradox's" inner line-length is misleading, while not false. Precisely *because* it is constant for ALL points and circles inside a larger turning circle. Iow, the same length of line would be equally true for an infinity of inner circles, tiny and large, and will always match the big circle's circumference**. Bob: Nothing changes if there is to be a 'track' the inner wheel is on, or if the line is an imaginary 'path'. You get the same result with two surfaces, or one. Set up or picture an experiment with any bottle (best, because it has a protruding "inner circle", the neck and cap seen from the side). Construct two parallel tracks for the bottle to rest on. One higher than the other to finely adjust for the differing diameters. When the bottle is evenly balanced and leveled on both tracks, roll it along them and observe that both bottle and neck will roll evenly, with no skipping, slipping or jamming. (I'm sure if it's not balanced well, it will veer off course). **An extreme: Imagine the Paradox with a 2 cm diameter circle in the center of a 2-meter outer wheel. When the large wheel revolves once on a surface, it travels its circumference = 6.282 meters (d x Pi). The little circle has a circumference of just 6.282 centimeters. And it too moves over six meters! Therefore, glaringly showing there is no correlation between small(er) circle and the total distance covered.
  4. anthony

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    It never was a "paradox", or else reality is really screwy. I wrote that this seeming puzzle is posed as a red herring (circumference of large wheel vs. small wheel) trapping those trying to 'solve' a non-existent problem of 'slippage' (with gears). Simple powers of observation confirm that any fixed inner circle conforms to the motion of its outer wheel/circle. The outer circle, alone, dictates distance. You roll a wine bottle on its side and its narrower neck rotates equally--and traverses the same distance as the bottle. Why and how? The neck must revolve slower. Inductive observation beats everything!
  5. anthony


    Generally true enough, many pro-Israel Jews were won over by him, not surprising after the insecurity they felt by the damage wrought on the region's status quo, in Obama's terms. As I recall, when campaigning, Hillary Clinton seemed very pro-Israel while Donald Trump then was a lesser-known quantity, but I believe it's true Glick was for Trump from the start. (Add: FWIW, I was also enthusiastic about him well before he did or said much for Israel. This is not all about Israel...).
  6. anthony

  7. anthony

    Donald Trump

    Michael, you since made the same distinction I was going to reply with. Elite vs. "elitism". E.g. I consider Objectivism an elite philosophy, bar none - but - is not elitist. (As philosophy, or individual). It is far too radical for that. All so-called "blue collar workers" are invited. That legendary Boston longshoreman will find unlimited benefits in the method of the philosophy, because its purpose is first and foremost for him to use, along with his study of it. And nobody has to be a full time scholar, or be a genius to comprehend much of the theory and apply it. The "cause" and promotion of Objectivism has value, of course, as long as its purpose remains aiming at individuals from all backgrounds. Evidently (due to ARI, it must be added), Rand is already well known in the USA and somewhat known elsewhere - so what is there left to do to convince the people, once they've read her? Horse and water, all that. My feeling is that ARI started becoming alarmed at the realization the philosophy wasn't taking the world by storm. That's the nature of Objectivism - it can't appeal universally to everyone, always. The factors are well discussed already. (i.e., Atheism, egoism, capitalism, and its radical metaphysics/epistemology). However, one senses from ARI's pov, that the numerical advances of O'ism among the populace have been far too slow. Into the second/third generation since its founding, the sheer numbers optimistically projected aren't arriving, while in the meantime, Brook and others observe many individual thinkers (especially conservatives) springing up on the web, gaining huge followings. How frustrating is that?! On the other end, in colleges and the dominant intelligentsia, ARI knows O'ism has not been granted mainstream, intellectual acceptance from the smug and snooty, leftist professors who smear the philosophy at every opportunity. (Naturally, the lefty intellectuals understand what is their mortal enemy). However, ARIans, I speculate, have been consciously making, um - 'adjustments' to appeal ("reach out") to the students of those professors, and to show that they too with Objectivism, can 'compete' on issues of the day: elections, etc. But as a result, I think, they could be over-accommodating, so compromising O'ist principles, Left-wards, and into the "elitism" which is part of that ideology. Universal acceptance, peer recognition, relevance. Some things can't be hurried or forced. Objectivism is too unique and individual-oriented to be elitist and the second-handed elements which accompany elitism's 'superiority' over the 'ordinary Joe'.
  8. anthony

    Donald Trump

    Ellen, I don't think it's over-broadening an abstraction to take a simple approach: that nationalism, properly and objectively defined, is to a nation as rational self-interest is to the individual. In fact, I'm sure this was Rand's view - for only one sample, she was vehemently against America's altruist policies with other countries, was she not? I can't figure why Objectivists would join in the smearing (and package-dealing?) of that concept.
  9. anthony

    Donald Trump

    (A refresher for me of the elegantly, hierarchical system you have). DEM-CONTROLLED HOUSE By Walter Williams Published Oct. 31, 2018 Democrats are hoping the coming election will give them a majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans and much of our nation dread that prospect. My question is: What would a House majority mean for the Democrats? Let's look at it. To control the House of Representatives, Democrats must win at least 218 seats, which many predict as being likely. To control the Senate, Democrats must win enough seats to get to 51, which many predict is unlikely. Let's say the Democrats do take the House. If they were to pass a measure that Republicans in both houses didn't like and President Donald Trump didn't like, either, he could use his veto pen. To override Trump's veto, Democrats would need to meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that they muster a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives (290 votes) and a two-thirds vote in the Senate (67 votes). Neither would be likely. It's quite a challenge to override a presidential veto. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the veto king, with 635 vetoes. Only nine of them were overridden. President Grover Cleveland vetoed 584 congressional measures and was overridden only seven times. If the House Democrats were to do all that they promise to do and if President Trump were to marshal the guts of Presidents Roosevelt and Cleveland — both Democrats, I might add — the next two years would be a sight to behold. But wait! Democrats are pushing for the elimination of the Electoral College and having presidents chosen by majority rule. Might they call for the same for all political decisions? That way, it would require only a simple majority vote, rather than two-thirds, to override a presidential veto. The Founding Fathers had utter contempt for majority rule. They saw it as a form of tyranny. In addition to requiring a supermajority to override a presidential veto, our Constitution has other anti-majority provisions. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures to vote for it. On top of that, it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Election of the president is done not by a majority popular vote, much to the disappointment of the left, but by the Electoral College. Having two houses of Congress places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. As mentioned earlier, our Constitution gives the president veto power to thwart the wishes of a majority in each house of Congress. It takes two-thirds in each house of Congress to override the president's veto. The Founders recognized that we need government; however, they also recognized that the essence of government is force and that force is evil. To reduce the potential for evil, they thought government should be as small as possible. They intended for us to have a limited republican form of government wherein human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Ordinary citizens and government officials are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud; it does not intervene in cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away. For those Americans who see majority rule as sacrosanct, ask yourselves how many of your life choices you would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process? What about decisions as to where you live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink? I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these decisions should be subject to a democratic process wherein majority rules, we would deem the person tyrannical. James Madison wrote, "Democracies ... have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Dr. Walter Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.
  10. anthony

    Donald Trump

    Imagine there's no countries/it isn't hard to do/nothing to kill or die for/and no religion, too/Imagine all the people/living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer/but I'm not the only one/I hope someday you'll join us/and the world will be as one. Great song by John. But I don't believe he understood human minds. "No countries", "no religion" and 'the world as one' - i.e. globalism - will not forever end conflict, as the dreamers imagine. Also not until nearly all countries recognize individual rights can there be a free movement of peoples.
  11. anthony

    Donald Trump

    How did nationalism gain such a bad rep? Well, there were the Nazis, "National Socialists" (as is amusing reminding any socialists.) There seems an ambivalent, contextual complexity about nationalism, reflected in this Wiki article. The first sentences cast nationalism in a most positive light by Objectivist standards - so on the basics what's wrong with it? All things to all people in different times, perhaps. Help, Ghs! Nationalism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Not to be confused with Patriotism. This article is about the ideology. For other uses, see Nationalist (disambiguation). "National unity" redirects here. It is not to be confused with National unity government or Unionism. Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty(self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern itself, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production.[3] Historically, nationalism is a modern concept dating from the 18th century, of an ideological scope greater than a peoples' attachment to family, to local authority, and to the native land.[4]Politically and sociologically, there are three paradigms for understanding the origins and bases of nationalism. The first paradigm is primordialism (perennialism), which proposes nationalism as a natural phenomenon, that nations have always existed. The second paradigm is ethnosymbolism, a complex, historical perspective, which explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon imbued with historical meaning, by way of the nation's subjective ties to national symbols. The third paradigm is modernism, which proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that requires the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[5]Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty(self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern itself, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production.[3] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[6]The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[7] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[7]This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[7] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.[8][9][10][11] In practice nationalism can be seen as positive or negative depending on context and individual perspective. Nationalism has been an important driver in independence movements around the world, such as the Greek Revolution, the Zionist movement that created modern Israel, and theIrish Revolution. It also was a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany, and the establishment of the Confederate States of America whose stated objective was the preservation of white supremacy. More recently, nationalism became an important driver of the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia. Nationalist economic policies have also been cited as causes for the Opium Wars between the British Empire and the Qing dynasty, and for the severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s.
  12. anthony

    Fake News

    Peter's contribution reminds me of a quote by Sergei Rachmaninoff on becoming an American citizen in 1943: "This is the only place on earth where a human being is respected for what he is and what he does, and it does not matter who he is and where he came from". (Quote found at Stephen Hicks' website). That brings to mind the stirring poem: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..." An aspect overlooked I think, about those "masses" of Europeans, they were not just poor and repressed, but also trapped inside a class system in their home countries, whose rigidity a man and woman and their children could never break out of, or rarely. Freedom to them meant a classless society of individuals, where only your competence, character and effort counted. But, and what matters most, "free" meant and still means - being free from others - and - from government help. What amount I know about that period in the USA, mostly from novels, my impression is one was left completely to one's own devices, to "sink or swim" (and sure, plus the small assistance and hard labor one could find in communities of other immigrants of the same country and language). I notice that great Statue poem is increasingly mentioned again, and I think it's invoked for some invalid or suspect reasons--mostly by Leftians who wish for an instant return to that time, of pretty much "open borders". Well, fine. The trouble is, they, the early Left, had managed to screw up the idea of a "free" nation. A welfare state is not free (apart from 'free' things). Now they believe, by virtue of opening up borders, they will 'feel good': hospitable, generous, noble, altruistic, moral - etc. -- Nice feelings at no cost. Don't ask them: Who pays...? So the government and nation is not the same as it was - ironically, as the result of Left meddling, the tail is not going to wag the dog and bring that era back by merely opening borders. To those potential immigrants who want to enjoy the freedom they won't find at home and to work and improve their lives, i.e., entering for the right reasons, one has to feel sympathy. To be free, partly means being free from state help, since if a citizen is going to be given welfare today, it is a certainty he or his offspring will be forced to provide it to any and all others, tomorrow.
  13. anthony

    Fake News

    Yup. No argument. The very question of "body-(brain)-mind" separation is ludicrous.
  14. anthony


    What do you get when you cross a (purportedly) secularist ideology with religious insanity? Leftianity. I have been trying to pin down for some time what broadly makes Leftians think and operate the way they do. The ideology/faith has been revealed like never before by recent events, you hear and see its adherents everywhere, which aids this interesting investigation.
  15. anthony

    Fake News

    A "brain" is what sent nerve transmissions to your fingers to type that -- and what selected what "that" was going to be? The brain is what determinists-skeptics believe is all that exists in men. Otherwise, I like it. How about: Use your mind or others will fill it for you. "Fake news".