KorbenDallas

What do you base your judgment on?

How is it rationalism to say: don't go by what I say, go by what I do? Don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk? Talk is cheap, look at a person's actions? What Cruz said is *not* rationalism. It's very factual, real-world Objectivism. Rand for instance said, don't go by what someone "says" his values are, look at his actions. (You can't legitimately claim something is your value, if you contradict it with your actions/inactions.) Whatever else you might reject about Cruz - personality or policies - I'd think this particular suggestion of his would be a common sense person's guiding principle for telling who is real and who is phony. If it can be used against Cruz to his detriment, so much the worse for Cruz. But rationalism? You're barking up the wrong tree, my friend. You want rationalism? Look for floating abstractions, vague generalities. Know anyone like that in the campaign? Anyone saying they're going to make America great again, just trust them? REB Cruz's statement I quoted was his attempt to get out of the New York values comments he made. Cruz telling people to ignore what he's saying on the campaign trail, yet what he's saying on the campaign trail is what will largely get him elected. That's a contradiction. So his entire argument rests on a contradiction, one that can't be traced back to reality because the voters do listen to what he says on the campaign trail, and will make decisions based off of that. That's a rationalistic argument, it rests on him requesting us to float everything he's saying on the campaign trail, when his contradiction is what makes his entire argument non-factual. Since when does Objectivism accept a conflict between what one says and does? That is not Objectivism. Rand did say to not go by what someone says his values are, to look at his actions--but that is not the rest of the context: Rand said this about people who's words contradict their actions. In Objectivism, there shouldn't be a conflict between what one says, and what one does. Cruz, on this issue, is admitting he is dishonest, and NOT objective. Nor was I injecting irrational (personal) biases into my statements earlier. Like I said, I thought there was joking going on. I listened very carefully to Cruz before arriving at these judgments (weeks). I do have a sense of humor, so those jokes came later, hierarchically.

I was using "sleazy preacher". Have you run into a "sleazy preacher?" I have a proximal avoidance that has so far kept me safe from any such allure See, now I am confused. How do you come to that conclusion about Cruz? What do you base your judgment on? A... Now I'm really confused, I thought you were joking earlier. My references were partly exaggerated, but his mannerisms do have shades of Benny Hinn and the like. Of course that wasn't a direct indication of his character or philosophy. Seriously speaking now, Cruz's philosophy is rationalism, and frequently makes arguments based on this. Doing this he runs himself into a corner like what I quoted earlier, "CRUZ: ...So what I would suggest to voters -- don't listen to what any of the candidates say on the campaign trail. Campaigns' rhetoric is cheap. Ignore what I say. Ignore what Donald says. Look to our records." He just told voters, on principle, to not listen to what he says or any other candidate says, in order to make the argument. That's rationalism, and not grounded in reality, and cannot be connected back to it in any way. He does this frequently, and that is my fundamental issue with Cruz.

Ah, the preferred wording. I was using "sleazy preacher". Have you run into a "sleazy preacher?" I have a proximal avoidance that has so far kept me safe from any such allure

Ah, the preferred wording. I was using "sleazy preacher".

Wish granted, Cruz. I won't listen to what you have to say.

Epistemologically, this is a good example of Aristotelian "possible to be" from De Interpretatione. From Objectivism (of course, largely based off of Aristotelianism), this would be an example of a "probable" when moving along the uncertainty-to-certainty scale. An exciting announcement, historically

Why are they foreclosing on his campaign office? Seems there is a large non-efficacious component to it

Awesome, I see it.. nice to have some semblance of identity ;) ty!

.. yet Jeb Bush might need some campaign funds here soon

Tried again on a different PC, but no change. I sent an e-mail with the attachment, thanks for taking a look

Pretty sure they're doing fine financially, but if that's what you value..

Nothing. --Brant Not quite. Check out the last paragraph in my prev post.

Hi John, Welcome to Objectivist Living! Your question is a serious one. Rand attempted to portray virtuous rich people as having earned their wealth from scratch or having earned the maintenance of a fortune they inherited (which fortune she liked to portray as something that would be lost for sure unless they personally did some earning of its preservation; a poetic-justice pinching of how things work). Winning money from gambling is not earning. Her philosophy concurs with our system in which money gotten by that means should be legally protected, just as charitable transactions should be legally protected. Rand ran not accepting the unearned into her morality. ...Regarding independence, Peikoff mentions in OPAR, "If life is the standard, man must think in order to gain knowledge, then use his knowledge to guide him in creating the material values his life requires. This means: he must be a self- supporting entity; he must finance his activities by his own productive effort; he must work for a living. (Even a wealthy heir or lottery winner is morally obliged to work, as we will see in due course.)" Regarding productiveness, "Productiveness constitutes the main existential content of virtue, the day-by-day substance of the moral life; as such, it is a responsibility of every moral being, whatever his finances. Even if a man has already made a fortune, therefore, or inherits one or wins one in a lottery, he needs a productive career. A rich man may choose, if he has a legitimate reason, to pursue a kind of work that brings him no money. But he still must work. A bum is not a person living man’s life, even if he has no trouble paying his bills." What is interesting to me is how Peikoff uses the examples of a wealthy heir and lottery winner. They share "coming into large sums of money", but fundamentally these are different, and by his usage, he seems to morally validate lottery playing and winning--but which kind of lottery? Well, the moral ones of course ;) And still concerning lotteries, this is where the trader principle would come into play, as this is a value exchange (of matter and spirit). From OPAR, "The trader principle states that, if a man seeks something from another, he must gain title to it, i.e., come to deserve it, by offering the appropriate payment. The two men, accordingly, must be traders, exchanging value for value by mutual consent to mutual benefit. 'A trader,' writes Ayn Rand, 'is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved.'" (then the next paragraph, Peikoff addresses the deserved and earned:) "To 'deserve' a positive, material or spiritual, is not a primary condition; it is an effect, to be achieved by enacting its cause. The cause is a certain course of thought and action, a course in which one creates and/or offers values. ... If we use the term “earn” to name the process of enacting the cause—of coming to merit a certain recompense by engaging in the requisite behavior—we can say that, in a rational philosophy, there is no 'unearned desert.' A man deserves from others that and only that which be earns." I'm not seeing an intellectual component to playing and winning the lottery. As for other forms of gambling, where some kind of strategy involved, then I'd say an Objectivist could make a case to claim the earned. Another aspect to the trader principle is, "do you value the valuer?", meaning, does one value the entity/person they would be entering the exchange with? With Peikoff's example of receiving an inheritance, he valued Ayn Rand greatly and also accepted the terms of the inheritance (to carry on Objectivism, which he has done a fantastic job). So getting back to lotteries, what "charities" does the organized lottery donate to? What was the purpose of organizing the lottery itself? How are the lottery funds distributed (shareholders, etc)? Rand supported aspects of government funding by a voluntary lottery, as against the government taking value by force, as long as the funds raised were not amorally used (in VoS, the next paragraph explains this). So in this case it would be, "do I value the 'would-be' valuer", meaning do I support the lottery's cause. (Grammar here is lacking, when logically switching from a person to an entity, but the principle is the same. Do I support that person/entity's causations.) So gambling for fun? Sure, why not. Bet a Coke, play some poker, etc; use that discretionary income for some entertainment.. as long as the house/lottery/institution facilitating the gamble isn't doing amoral things. So now getting back to the earned/deserved and value creation, in Rand's Art of Fiction audio lectures she speaks of how to create wealth (I believe it was in answer to a question on how to become a millionaire), and she essentially states that one would need to create equal value for the sum they seek in return. This statement would address the principles already mentioned; the virtue of independence, productiveness, the trader principle, the earned and deserved. That would be what I would have to say about lotteries so far, but a related point of interest would be that Peikoff answered the question, "If an Objectivist wins $100,000,000 in the lottery what should he do with the money?", in one of his podcasts: http://www.peikoff.com/2011/02/07/if-an-objectivist-wins-100000000-in-the-lottery-what-should-he-do-with-the-money/

A more primary question might be: Is it ethical for an Objectivist to purchase a ticket for a government run lottery? Sure, would the Objectivist seek value from a government ran lottery that contributes financially to a government education system, the more essential question, and doesn't seem virtuous for an Objectivist to purchase the ticket. That's why the original question was the Objectivist purchased a ticket anyway, not seeing that essential, and won. But seems a bit arbitrary now.. Good. Glad we worked that out. What brought you to OL? A... And in some interesting news, Hillary Clinton said in an interview today that she bought a Powerball ticket...

Wanted to discuss/talk about Objectivism with some folks, nobody around here is one. I went to the "other" forum first and had a moderator come at me who was skilled in logical fallacies, not so much Objectivism. Bad experience. Like that there is only one moderator here. This is definitely the better place to be Where is "around here" and are you a worker, business person, student? Oh, north florida area and a worker with a BA in business. Studied Objectivism off and on since early in life, but a few years ago I've studied and read more. Making my way through Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking now

A more primary question might be: Is it ethical for an Objectivist to purchase a ticket for a government run lottery? Sure, would the Objectivist seek value from a government ran lottery that contributes financially to a government education system, the more essential question, and doesn't seem virtuous for an Objectivist to purchase the ticket. That's why the original question was the Objectivist purchased a ticket anyway, not seeing that essential, and won. But seems a bit arbitrary now.. Good. Glad we worked that out. What brought you to OL? A... Wanted to discuss/talk about Objectivism with some folks, nobody around here is one. I went to the "other" forum first and had a moderator come at me who was skilled in logical fallacies, not so much Objectivism. Bad experience. Like that there is only one moderator here. This is definitely the better place to be

Yea I tried that, and also going to my profile, clicking Edit Profile, then trying to upload from there (change picture). When I get to the window and upload, the image won't display after the window indicates it was uploaded (it doesn't show up in the crop section or right next to the upload radio button). I'm not sure why, I'm using IE 11 without any pop up blockers or add ins, and have tried different sized images but it doesn't work. Is there an image file size or pixel size max/min I need to worry about? Thanks for the help

A more primary question might be: Is it ethical for an Objectivist to purchase a ticket for a government run lottery? Sure, would the Objectivist seek value from a government ran lottery that contributes financially to a government education system, the more essential question, and doesn't seem virtuous for an Objectivist to purchase the ticket. That's why the original question was the Objectivist purchased a ticket anyway, not seeing that essential, and won. But seems a bit arbitrary now..

Why don't you ask what Objectivism has to say about question without context? By the way, welcome to OL. A... Thanks for the warm welcome. I implied Objectivist ethics. And what part of your understanding of Objectivist ethics are you applying to a voluntary purchase of a lottery ticket by an Objectivist? Independence, productiveness. The windfall from the win could be seen as the unearned.

Why don't you ask what Objectivism has to say about question without context? By the way, welcome to OL. A... Thanks for the warm welcome. I implied Objectivist ethics.

Trying to change my avatar using a file from my computer, but it's not working. Is there a minimum number of posts I need to make before I can do this?

With the Powerball jackpot at $1.4 billion at the time of this post, what does Objectivism have to say about winning a state, or the national, lottery?