• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by anthony

  1. "Full-blown" altruism is a rare qualifier by me, I use it only in relation to Watson's "pathological altruism" (aimed at the Prog- Left), cleverly recognized even by that non-O'ist.... Since many people are not cognizant of altruism's wider and deeper nature, innocently taking it at face value. i.e. Just being kind, helpful or considerate to others, so getting sucked in. Then, the many non-innocents know also that invoking "altruism" and their distorted versions of 'empathy' unfailingly submits others' minds and actions to their will. And there we see the SJW's, media, and all the rest. If there's any doubt about the atrocities of altruism/otherism, I suggest to see it in the context of interference in others' lives, minds, freedom. That "interference" we can take to any degree and kind. (Not reasoned argument/persuasion, of course, which we notice is logically, the loathed target of today's altruists). "Interference" goes counter to acknowledging the general "other" as having an inalienable value in themselves and their lives, (as well as their potential value to one - far secondarily). To wrap up on others and our relations with them, there are those specific individuals to whom one gives one's attention, affection, respect, cooperation (etc.etc.), based on one's actual - known - value in them. But, in every sense, either using others by this now, totally implanted morality as the means to one's gains -and/or, being used by others for their ends, is where *sacrificial* altruism laid down by Comte and accurate to him comes in. Rand didn't invent the concept nor use the term idiosyncratically, she simply saw straight through its causes and effects. Comte reported on what he -believed- he saw in how societies function, but didn't notice (evaded) much underlying self-interest, nor did he estimate the benevolence factor, and developed his ethics out of selfless duty - all for all. One huge blob of selflessness. You see the results of his observations and ethics at work still (and worse than ever). Giving money, the material and physical side of altruism is just the iceberg-tip - some inexperienced Objectivists miss the big context and then could make ludicrous errors, like objections to helping out in emergencies, which you've pointed out. I am not unhappy I've not long been too privy to as much " knuckleheadedness" in this community as you. Naturally I've seen some and will see more, but I accept them as others' struggles and mistakes, where I have my own to concern me. When it distracts from the important things, some ignorance of the back-story and others' doings and statements is not always a bad thing. ;) Michael, to me the key to understanding the essential nature of altruism is in one definition by AR: "surrendering" the self, "self-abnegation". Which is the precondition for its survival. Clearly, sacrificers can't operate if there aren't self-sacrificers - especially when they can't use physical force. The two go together, occasionally running in the same person, like now. What it means to 'negate' oneself, one's mind, i.e. one's rational standards, values, independence, happiness and all knowledge, is to enter degrees of gradual self-sacrifice that could be thought of as 'self-loss'. At the extreme I strongly suggest that the NZ killer who sacrificed others' lives to his notions of *a cause* (in his head, a lesser value in favor of a greater one, therefore, a gain - he might justify) is both self-sacrificial and sacrificial, the ultimate altruist. Even the most irrational person cannot escape his most basic knowledge of what basic humanity and its basic value is, and by discarding their humanity and his own, he's "negated" himself from human to beneath an animal (which, pre-conceptual and not therefore consciously 'selfish' nor self-sacrificial, can't select alternatives among its acts).
  2. Michael, you may be confusing good will, kindness, benevolence, generosity, aid, charity and so on - whichever arises from your value system at an appropriate occasion, with full-blown altruism. And that altruism is completely contrary to one's values, since it is forced on one, or as we see at every turn today, psychologically pressured - guilted- onto us. To the benefit of any and all people you don't even know. As was said by Rand, and I can draw on too many life examples in agreement, altruism makes benevolence impossible. Each of us has a limit, materially, spiritually, emotionally, to helping others (outside our immediate circle of intimates). And when it's not done by one's identified choice, one will begin to resent/hate all other people and their endless needs. You might have seen me say that this is where my main support for President Trump lies. I believe he recalls when unforced benevolence - from moral strength - based on values, individual and national self-interest - was paramount in the USA. Not acted out of selfless duty. Probably he doesn't know this philosophically, that he and his supporters are implicitly pushing back against sacrificial altruism at home, while encouraging outside nations to also find self-interest. He understands Socialism, however. Altruism as cause and consequences. I see that universal love and harmony and the highly selective, disingenuous advocacy of 'empathy', are both the means of seizing power (over minds, always over minds) for some 'elitists' - and the promised dream and end goal for many, many more who will slavishly follow to that global utopia.
  3. Michael, Glad you mentioned empathy which JP Watson alludes to here on behalf of the murdered victims. Elsewhere, I've heard him talk generally of "psychopathic altruism". (For Objectivism "altruism" suffices, natch). So he shows he has a great understanding of "power grabbing" by means of the sugar-coating of altruism -- forcing 'universal love' aka altruism, as its end goal. Sacrificial altruism plus power, and we have socialism. I wish many objectivists shared Watson's vision of altruism, minds every place subjugating themselves to 'love'' and 'empathy'. (Only for the 'right' groups and races, that is, the rest get hatred). And how your President's election interrupted their fantasy (that got them so unbelievably riled)..
  4. anthony


    And I repeat, that for every effect there is a cause. A painting does not exist without a maker. They are connected. There's nothing "imaginary" about postmodern artworks, we've all seen them, and nothing imaginary about the artists. Nothing imaginary about the acclaim their work is often received with. It is redundant to name some or any personalities. I don't "expect" more than discussion about the intentions of artists, the affective power of a pictoral 'idea' and the final effect art has on culture, but you've succeeded in shutting that down.
  5. anthony


    Yes? For ad hominem, look at the thread title. The topic began respectfully, reverted to a personal hit piece of MN. Michael left in disgust at being tricked by the initial pleasantries, supposedly. Easier to try take apart a personality than debate his ideas.
  6. anthony


    Ah, the "opponents", in other words, "sides". Your raison d'etre, not mine. I like arguing ideas instead of ad hominems at opponents.
  7. anthony


    J. The arguments ring a bell in your mind or they don't. You may compare them to your abstracted understandings from experience, of real works and real artists (and you, of course) and critics and buyers in the art industry you have known, or not. As you wish. The device of "Imaginary people" you have ~imagined~ of me shows concrete thinking, that of wanting to be shown example upon example, without which, it 'follows', my argument *must* be invalid. A way to avoid considering/debating my quite unoriginal proposition about artists ultimately 'affecting' society with their works. (Also, "society" in turn creating a demand for types of art, which can be taken as an indicator of that society). Relax, this is not all about you anyway.
  8. Hi there! The acceptance of reality as you put it, is the base of reason - in short, inducing and integrating one's own concepts/principles from a multitude of sense perceptions (observation and experience). Induction-integration is much harder to get right than simply making deductions from Rand's ready-made principles - from which comes Objectivism's common bugbear, 'rationalism'. But is also endlessly rewarding and fun. Knowing the principles in advance is invaluable, of course, and they too can and often should be traced back to their concretes/situations in reality, as a sort of double check ("reduction"). Induction from observation is to what she ascribed her own thought processes, reputedly stating she couldn't have arrived at her comprehensive philosophy without induction. Advisedly, I personally view the main target as the O'ist constructing his own objectivist philosophy by the same method, ultimately 'freeing' oneself from being "a follower". (in her insistence on an independent mind, Rand woudn't have it any other way, I fairly safely assume: "Save me from my followers!" she did exclaim). Cheers.
  9. Michael, You are probably correct, this blurry beast called Fascism -may - (according to how tightly one defines it) arise across the political spectrum. I'm in no mood to let the Leftist-Progressives off even a little, though, after seeing and hearing the 'New' Fascists in operation in the US. Especially while they have pretended so long it's only from the Right. So here's another by D'Souza, who I expect you are familiar with.
  10. anthony


    Well, all the art produced speaks for itself. Connect the dots. Just look at the prolific amounts of post-modern art made, in two broad categories: contra-identification, and contra-value - are they "imaginary"? Are their creators "imaginary"? Did they or did they not make their art with foresight and deliberation? Do they (too) not seek fame, approval and wealth and often to affect people's minds? So what conclusions can one generally infer about these p-m artists' mindset and vision of existence? (in defiance of a long tradition of quality art). You appear always too keen to distance the artwork from the artist's mind, as if he can't take full responsibility for what he makes, as if one shouldn't ever deduce anything about his views of life from his works. When I see art I see someone's mind at work.
  12. anthony


    Either an artist (postmodern, or not) strongly desires to have an influence on a large number of people through his works, or he doesn't. Either he believes each work he painstakingly produces is "important", or it is not. He can't have them both ways. Except, because of a ready audience and market which highly regard postmodern art, he can in fact get away with his contradictions. "I didn't mean it, my work is a joke, please don't take me seriously - but yes, I mean it, I am a serious artist - because *they* believe me". I think the basic criteria of pomo is when an artwork 1). can't begin to be identified by a rational (visually sane) viewer and/or 2). shows low to non-value in the art itself, holding to self-ridicule and ultimately ridiculing any human endeavor. Saying overall, if you can't see what it is, it's your disability and you must learn a ~different~ reality; and if you can't giggle at the art you take your life too importantly. The first task of an artist isn't moralism, and shouldn't be - that usually results in weak and prescriptive art, when tried - he achieves plenty, more than enough, when he's true and honest to his personal vision, whichever it may be. However, the effects (and he must recognise, also) don't stop with just completion and people's viewing of his work, they cumulatively knock-on into other art, general media, movies, popular music, intellectualism, the way people see themselves and existence, think, value, emote and behave, and finally, into politics and mass political beliefs. Who could think it surprising that the pomo phenomenon coincides with and preceded this period, maybe the most sensationalist, cynical, anti-reason and anti-individualist? "You asked for it..."
  13. An emaciated lion in a zoo in the Venezuelan state of Zulia. Image by Christian Veron on Twitter.
  14. Concrete you want. But are you sure ~your~ calculations and proof are reality based? As you've seen, I've been repeatedly concerned with real world "content", like friction, velocities, mass, force, drag and torque. Those factors have been generally ignored, in the 'track hypothesis'. Unless your calculations account for these, plus a physical track, not imaginary, they amount to abstractions. A "line" which escapes having "concrete" attributes, i.e. friction, for the wheel to sorta glide upon ("slippage") isn't good enough proof. Concrete, you want. A real world challenge for you: Two identical, rotating wheels A, B, on separate axes, both turning clockwise are brought firmly together, perimeter meeting perimeter. A has a Vt of 6m/s, B has the Vt of 4m/s. What will be the effect? Both A and B will turn at 10 m/s? Both will turn at 2m/s? Both at 0m/s? Think about it. Max - "B. It is of course the other way around: it is the integrity of smaller and larger wheel as a rigid body...that causes the Vt's to differ". No, you have it in reverse, which answers itself if you'd paid any dues to Aristotelian metaphysics. What pre-exists all the above? A wheel. What are its attributes? Just for one, different tangential velocities of different radii/points within it. [An entity acts according to its nature]. Only then, for the Paradox, is there an add-on feature (an accessory) -- an extra wheel, "with a common center..." etc. This extra wheel acts according to the nature and actions of the first wheel: Revolution (1 : 1), tangential velocity (proportionally to where it is positioned - its radius), angular velocity, translational velocity, direction.
  15. I'll trust my recall. I began remarking on this t-velocity (whatever I named it) several months ago and have tried to explain it and its ramifications several times, before, in the last few days, it's now gained purchase. Of all of you, only Darrell, Merlin and yourself even alluded to Vt. The v-s experts were silent. Now, everyone acts as if they knew all about it. (But won't admit to the effects this must have on the group theory). However, one inconvenient fact - different Vt's: A) blows away the 'track and slippage' idea - B. explains why and how an inner, smaller wheel maintains its 1: 1 integrity with the larger, outer (and travels laterally as identically far and as fast as the latter).
  16. The best visual depiction of the different Vt's of inner circles. For the visuo-spatial experts who doubted that.
  17. I have to understand all the fantastical notions of an inner track and slip which allows the small wheel to catch up with the big one, or something - you can apply yourself to see what I'm talking about, too. Here: There is no way that two attached, concentric wheels will roll AND skid on two tracks. Their circumferences are turning at different speeds. They will stop dead. Either your inner track has substance, or it is "a line". You can't have it both ways. That equivocation is what all the hypothesizing has rested on. Max, for one, was smart enough to realize that inserting a physical track (plus the additional friction, velocities, mass, torque) was going nowhere. And if you "well understand this fact" - i.e., an inner wheel which must travel further than its circumference, then you also know - it is what it is. You can't 'fix' it with applied 'slippage'. So, for what have you been arguing?
  18. Fine. You've invalidated a 'track and slippage' altogether. On its own track, the inner wheel's far lesser Vt than the outer's would halt both wheels with its drag, as you admit. And second, a wheel cannot "slip/skid" on a *line*. A "line" is theoretical. In the Paradox the inner line is simply a representation (of the firm track which the large wheel rolls upon), but elevated to perplex observers. I guess it worked. You need to accept the reality of an inner wheel which travels further than its circumference seems to allow, which is a fact.
  19. Jon, *Only* the circumference of the outer wheel (the plate), determines the distance covered in one revolution. OK? Any inner circles of whatever size can do no more than conform to this distance. Which indicates they travel further than allowed by their circumferences, and seems "strange". The point of the paradox. But it's normal. (Being smaller, naturally they "lack circumference"). BUT. Since their circumferences turn slower, less Vt, they don't slip w.r.t the lines. If it were possible for them to turn the same Vt speed, then there'd be slip.
  20. Ellen, If you can't "see* tangential velocity at work - in action - or read that it is a known quantity measured in meters/sec, or reason that two or more bodies revolving in synchronicity on different radii, logically rotate at different velocities -- it is you who's muddled. Quite. A "tangent" is a theoretical line meeting the circle circumference at a point -- here, for the purpose of velocity measurement at the point. Your "tangent" you want also to be a "track". But in theory, as in the physical state, the track fails. Imagination isn't good enough validation. Fails, for the above reason which you can't accept: different speeds. Slippage would causally occur with identical Vt speeds of the concentric wheels. Unreal as that would be. Different speeds, no slippage. As for the correct nomenclature, this is descending into nominalism (to score points). I had repeated "tangential" velocity and Vt so often here, without making its significance heard, I tried a looser word. A good-faith debater would take the general meaning and understand the context. btw, I didn't "effectively accept the idea" [of tangential velocity] - I could observe its effects when first viewing the Wheel Paradox early on, but didn't know yet the term it was called. I can't believe that few still can acknowledge this evident fact of a wheel and circle (and the visual-spatial ability of some is poor) --and what it implies for resolving the paradox .
  21. See, you are looking without seeing. You have a preconception ("lack circumference to roll true...") of how the wheels *should* be turning, and missing what is there. You cannot see the two points on the circumferences taking a longer/shorter path to return to the bottom point? The outer one moving further and therefore moving faster? In order for both to return simultaneously?
  22. WHAT? Do me a favor, go look at your bike's wheel and come back and tell me you see slippage - anywhere - at any radius - between tire, wheel, whatever.
  23. Blah, small potatoes. Tony was experimenting with ideas of Darrell's cones and funnels mimicking a large wheel and small wheel. Weeks ago. Of course the first thing to do is to level the ends.
  24. Here's a suggestion. Enough mathematizing, go observe a wheel turn. There cannot be "slippage", and guess why? A wheel is an integrated whole and every point on every different radius within it, is moving at a specific, different, tangential velocity -- As would do an internal wheel, positioned on any radius. The ONLY way you'll have your slippage, is for the internal velocities to be all equal (oh, but that's what you think). Then, the only way to try to attain slippage, would be to place a physical track under the inside wheel for it to slip on (oh, but then its different tangential speed will cause drag, and stop both wheels).