Strictlylogical

Members
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Strictlylogical

  1. Watching a bunch of self-satisfied and self-hating meddling polite do-gooder tyrants with a case of "big-brother-US envy" enslave themselves into a backwater of insipid virtue-signaled mediocrity... is simultaneously absolutely beyond belief AND dull and tedious.
  2. My wife went through a phase, when she was about 23-24 during which she had an intense and visceral urge to have a baby... was drawn almost with a kind of yearning.. to every baby she saw... we finally had a baby close to 10 years later. Those could have been voluntary chosen rational urges... or she may have temporarily and involuntarily transformed into an animal of sorts... like a Weremother or something.
  3. You should send this to philosophy and/or science of mind journals. Get it published and peer reviewed. You'll be famous, and win a Nobel prize.
  4. You have it backwards and your fabrications, straw men, mischaracterizations, and intellectual dishonesty are so blatantly on display that it beggars comprehension. On occasion I would confuse your evasions and twisting of other’s words as honest mistake, but now, I just don’t buy that anymore, but it perplexes me. Do you think it’s impressing anyone? Do you think you are learning, growing, or refining your learning by faking to hash it out with discussions? Do you think you are winning some kind of competition, earning golden stars in some universal ledger by fake d
  5. I agree. I would go on to imagine the following. By the time birds are adults they are quite familiar with things they pick up or manipulate with their beaks, insects, nuts, pebbles, leaves, straw, sticks, grass etc... they’ve seen piles of them, perhaps seen others making piles... and perhaps having never had the urge to do so previously, one spring a bird sees a particularly interesting crook between a branch and a tree trunk... it’s dark and empty and enticing... irresistibly so. An urging to perch there... multiple times reinforces itself and then another urge is bor
  6. I didn’t say humans have bird instincts, I merely note that your so called logic you use to refute any and all instinct in humans is premised on an assumption that instincts we observe in animals should be experienced in a certain way when you have no idea how instinct is experienced by the animals you accept have them. What basis could you possibly have to posit that humans should experience, something you claim we absolutely do not experience, namely instinct, in a particular manner, namely, as knowledge instead of an urge, feeling, or impulse? In any case, my comment regardin
  7. What makes you think instinct has anything to do with knowledge or thought? Speaking of projection... you project onto animals and the instinct guiding them with your unique human capacity of rational thought. There is no reason to think any human or animal experiences instinct as knowledge or thought. As for distaste... you think some aspects about the nature of humans are not high enough to include in your concept of human... making it impossible for you to make decisions about what a man should do if it has anything to do with his lower nature... but man is man... and what h
  8. You seem to be fighting against the idea instinct is the primary guide to action or its final arbiter, but I don’t think anyone is making that claim. I think you tend to deny the significant impact of instinct on human function and experience, on our minds and bodies, even our feelings and thoughts, because you find certain things about what a human is, to be distasteful. You ignore those things about the nature of man which you find distasteful... at your peril. For to think about what man is and what he should do you cannot use a concept of man which fails to accept the reality o
  9. Why is consideration of a digestive system relevant in determining what a man should do?
  10. ??? So... does the fact that he has a particular kind of digestive system and metabolism come into consideration or not?
  11. Don't get hung up worrying about the pertinence... it's a simple question you can think about and answer straightforwardly and honestly. As an alternative how about: When determining whether a man "should" eat fast food (say greasy burgers), for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, every day of the week, or in fact should not do so, does the fact that he has a particular kind of digestive system and metabolism (which happens to be specific and different from that of some other animals which are not rational) come into consideration, or does such determining whether he should do so only depe
  12. Is there "the principle behind anthony"? Something about how a conversation just stops... when there is only silence in response to some question ... a something about the point at which there is no longer any reply? Perhaps... But I would rather that there were no such principle, and that we could continue having a conversation.
  13. When determining how a man "should" descend a tree so as to avoid injury, does the fact that he has four limbs and no tail (as opposed to some other animals, which are not rational, who do), come into consideration, or does such a consideration only depend on the fact that he is rational?
  14. Anthony, I had initially asked you what the purpose of abstraction was. This answer and the answer to my follow up question focus on what abstraction is. I'm still interested in talking about the purpose of abstraction. Why bother with the process of arriving at the concept? What use is a concept? "What for"? As an aside your answers imply abstraction involves a removal or ignorance of some universal characteristics, i.e. some particular "lesser" or "less significant" "non-relevant" characteristics. How do you pick and choose which universals to
  15. What is a "lesser attribute" of an entity. What determines it's removal from a concept? For example, what about a particular apple, what "lesser attribute" is to be removed from the "one", all-embracing concept "apple"?
  16. One possibly major difference between units of money which are themselves units of objective wealth/value and instruments/systems for store and exchange like Crypto, is that for the former you need only know of reality, specifically, human nature and the basic need and or use for the unit of wealth/value independent of any specific person, group of persons, or organization of persons, or systems etc., to know your units have objective value, but for the latter, you need to trust the people who set the system up, the group of people who agree to participate in that system, trust that the system
  17. Don't give up because one lawyer dissuaded you. Find another, maybe one who will work on contingency, or another who is strongly interested in justice and/or does pro bono work. There are many free minded legal big hitters who would be interested to see justice in such a case. Do not give up. Reach out and find the others, work together.
  18. This raises a few interesting questions for me. Back in the day (prior to paper fiat currencies), store of wealth/value, exchange of units of that value, the long term and the short term were all in a sort of harmony. At times populations, cultures, and technology were "static" enough over a single lifetime or perhaps even a few generations such that a thing could serve all these purposes: one COULD choose to store wealth long or short term, and exchange value with a single thing, money (e.g. gold coins). Any IOU based on units of that money was as good on an IOU on units of wealth itse
  19. A value to a human being, like shelter, food, art, something which provides you some value from use, possession, etc. or which you could decide to trade, for something of a different kind but which to you has the same or greater value. Something that has value itself, to human flourishing, other than its use solely to trade with others, for OTHER stuff which actually has objective value to humans.
  20. I might be way off base here, but isn't crypto, as such, purely and completely devoid of any objective value? That's not to say it's impossible that it might have some advantages in our current mixed economy (euphemism alert... it's a litany of misdirection and a tyranny of regulation, taxation, and surveillance, a well worn and comfy, increasingly brazenly naked tool of slavery... but I digress)... advantages over our so called "money" which the state guarantees is continually drained of value over time... advantages perhaps on the way toward (or even helping towards) a truly free
  21. I have often thought of the fundamental asymmetry between Marxist collectivists and classical liberals / radical Capitalism. The former relies on and is rooted in proactive force and cannot countenance the latter in any way, but instead must overthrow it, eradicate it. There can be no harmony with the latter's existence. The latter is pacifist like nothing the hippies would ever have dreamed up, with non-initiation of force at its base. Rather than outlawing collectivism as such (while of course outlawing collectivist use of force) the latter is perfectly harmonious with any
  22. Sorry, I was almost tempted to repeat myself.
  23. It means, witch hunts against lawyers having particular legal theories based (at least in part) on philosophical or political ideas or beliefs, deprive individuals whose case may depend upon those legal theories, from having any possibility of a fair proceeding before an adjudicator, because strong advocacy for his position has been abrogated. Were law societies in a "free democracy" to require a yearly solemn affirmation in the rightness and propriety of Affirmative Action, how could a lawyer morally represent a citizen who wanted to overturn Affirmative Action law? If law societies in
  24. Michael, I've noted you have a certain amount of optimism, here as which is repeatedly shown elsewhere and throughout your posts. If I were to imagine we were in Germany, in the early days of Hitler's rise to power, rare proponents of individual rights and free will having a chat over coffee... would it be safe to say you would not have had the same optimism, and for specific reasons? If we were having coffee now... what is to say we are not is a psycho-culturally analogous situation? (I suppose this depends on how much of the true American spirit has atrophied) I'm n