Is Capitalism Moral?


moralist

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Read David Hume on causality.  Causality  is a Jedi Mind Trick.   It goes like this. A happens  then B happens therefore A caused B. 

Hume successfully criticized crude noting of sequences, such as; the leaves turn colors and then, winter. Therefore, colorful leaves cause winter.

Our understanding of what really causes winter is not a mere noting of sequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

No he didn't.

You exist, believe me.

:)

Michael

I exist but the bogus mental shinnigans that constitute metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) has been completely discredited. 

Reality exists, you exist and metaphysics is bullshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I exist but the bogus mental shinnigans that constitute metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) has been completely discredited. 

Reality exists, you exist and metaphysics is bullshit. 

Okay--please explain WTF you keep talking about--about "metaphysics." 

In simple Objectivism metaphysics is merely reality. There is reality and there is the apprehending brain in axiomatic rendition. Are you saying "bullshit" apples to that--that Objectivism, and science, have no axiomatic foundation? Sic transit gloria logic?

So, who's done this discreditiing? Hume? What was actually discredited?

--Brant

and since philosophy itself is garbage in your cosmology then someone other than a philosopher must have done the job: How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Okay--please explain WTF you keep talking about--about "metaphysics." 

In simple Objectivism metaphysics is merely reality. There is reality and there is the apprehending brain in axiomatic rendition. Are you saying "bullshit" apples to that--that Objectivism, and science, have no axiomatic foundation? Sic transit gloria logic?

So, who's done this discreditiing? Hume? What was actually discredited?

--Brant

and since philosophy itself is garbage in your cosmology then someone other than a philosopher must have done the job: How?

Not empirically falsifiable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

If that's metaphysics you've just thrown axioms out with the bathwater.

They can't be empirically falsifiable because you can't go outside them and adduce data.

--Brant

Empirical falsifiability is what separates sense from non-sense.  Proper scientific theories are falsifiable in principle  That is what makes them scientific and not religious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Empirical falsifiability is what separates sense from non-sense.  Proper scientific theories are falsifiable in principle  That is what makes them scientific and not religious. 

Axioms are nonsense?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Axioms are nonsense?

--Brant

axioms are not nonsense.  Axioms are assumptions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

axioms are not nonsense.  Axioms are assumptions. 

And, since agency and existence are assumptions according to this way of thinking, the falsification of ALL falsified theories are mere assumptions, too. How can the very process of falsification work if it might not exist in the first place? How can it work as a standard of truth if it's very existence is a mere assumption? Besides, who does the assuming if such a person or species might not exist?

:)

You can't have it both ways. We are either made out of the same stuff as the rest of reality and build our logic on that, or we are ghosts floating outside of reality making up rules about how falsifiability determines what reality is and is not.

Apropos, this last position is about as religious as it gets. And folks who think like this say they're scientists...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And, since agency and existence are assumptions according to this way of thinking, the falsification of ALL falsified theories are mere assumptions, too. How can the very process of falsification work if it might not exist in the first place? How can it work as a standard of truth if it's very existence is a mere assumption? Besides, who does the assuming if such a person or species might not exist?

:)

You can't have it both ways. We are either made out of the same stuff as the rest of reality and build our logic on that, or we are ghosts floating outside of reality making up rules about how falsifiability determines what reality is and is not.

Apropos, this last position is about as religious as it gets. And folks who think like this say they're scientists...

:)

Michael

Good.  We are made of the same stuff (atoms) as every other material being in the cosmos.  No one has ever seen it otherwise.  We can slice and dice human bodies and they are made out of known chemical elements. 

Except for the Law of Contradiction (not both A and ~A)  what do you think is self evident.  That is what an axiom is supposed to be.  That self-evidentiary approach was tried in geometry by Euclid  et al but that was shown not to be correct when non-Euclidean geometry as discovered/invented in the 19 th century.  Self-evident does not work in physics either. 

The law of identity is not fully general.  The indeterminacy of quantum states  makes the assertion "A is in the same state as the state of A" dubious.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

We can slice and dice human bodies and they are made out of known chemical elements. 

... indeterminacy of quantum states  makes the assertion "A is in the same state as the state of A" dubious.   

Ah. That explains why Bob is so bloodthirsty, happy to be a partisan without conscience. You can't prove anything is right or wrong, he bleats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Good.  We are made of the same stuff (atoms) as every other material being in the cosmos.  No one has ever seen it otherwise.  We can slice and dice human bodies and they are made out of known chemical elements. 

Except for the Law of Contradiction (not both A and ~A)  what do you think is self evident.

Bob,

Is this Law of Contradiction made up of atoms? Is it engraved on a stone tablet somewhere I never heard about? Is "self-evident" something made up of atoms and chemicals?

Inquiring minds so very much plead for enlightenment.

:evil:  :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Good.  We are made of the same stuff (atoms) as every other material being in the cosmos.  No one has ever seen it otherwise.  We can slice and dice human bodies and they are made out of known chemical elements. 

Except for the Law of Contradiction (not both A and ~A)  what do you think is self evident.  That is what an axiom is supposed to be.  That self-evidentiary approach was tried in geometry by Euclid  et al but that was shown not to be correct when non-Euclidean geometry as discovered/invented in the 19 th century.  Self-evident does not work in physics either. 

The law of identity is not fully general.  The indeterminacy of quantum states  makes the assertion "A is in the same state as the state of A" dubious.   

Intuition was given to us by nature because intuition had survival value. Intuition is based on experience. It works well to the extent that our experience applies. Things like the theory of relativity and quantum theory are non-intuitive or counter-intuitive because they are outside our experience.

Intuition can be very useful for the needs of practical living. Judge Judy, with much experience, could tell whether a person is lying. An experienced businessman might have an intuition about a business opportunity. An experienced doctor might have an intuition about a diagnosis. An experienced employer might have an intuition about a job hunter. The best chess players have well developed intuition.

Intuition can fail or mislead in cases where our experience does not apply. For example someone said the atom bomb will not work and he speaks as an expert on explosives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

axioms are not nonsense.  Axioms are assumptions. 

A is A is an assumption?

Isn't that also saying A is B is an assumption?

Your broad premise contains too much. It's one half true and the other half false or--therefore--all false because it's all arbitrary.

Reality exists is an assumption?

We exist with a consciousness capable of apprehending reality is an assumption?

Please quote and critique Rand if you can. This is an Objectivist forum.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 The law of identity is not fully general.  The indeterminacy of quantum states  makes the assertion "A is in the same state as the state of A" dubious.   

Perhaps the quantum states are not indeterminate, merely so identified so far.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Is this Law of Contradiction made up of atoms? Is it engraved on a stone tablet somewhere I never heard about? Is "self-evident" something made up of atoms and chemicals?

Inquiring minds so very much plead for enlightenment.

:evil:  :)

Michael

The Law of Contradiction is not a physical principle.  It is a logical principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Law of Contradiction is not a physical principle.  It is a logical principle.

What is a physical principle?

--Brant

But... but... but... if logic exists, isn't it supposed to be physical?

When one says EVERYTHING that exists is physical, how does logic get a pass?

And if non-physical things actually do exist in a physical-only universe, what are they made of?

Ghosts?

:evil: 

(btw - Great question, Brant.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But... but... but... if logic exists, isn't it supposed to be physical?

When one says EVERYTHING that exists is physical, how does logic get a pass?

And if non-physical things actually do exist in a physical-only universe, what are they made of?

Ghosts?

:evil: 

(btw - Great question, Brant.)

Michael

logic the form of understanding our very physical brains use.  It is an effect of the operation of our physical brains.  Language is also such a thing.  Birds fly and we speak and make logical inferences.  All of the effects and operations ultimately are the result of physical processes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

logic the form of understanding our very physical brains use.

I doubt that. Most people other than aspies are poor at logic. Most people who are good at logic are specially trained in logic. Logic does not seem to come naturally to most humans other than aspies. If it did we would be computers or vulcans.

The brain seems to be a pattern machine, both recognizing patterns and creating patterns. This is how we recognize faces and a voice on the phone and the letter A in different fonts and sizes and colors and positions. The brain can do logic like a wrench can be used as a hammer.

1st workman:  Give me a wrench.

2nd workman:  What kind of wrench?

1st workman:  Don't matter. I'm going to use it for a hammer.

The brain evolved for survival, not to be a computer. The brain can, especially with training, do logic like a wrench can drive a nail.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is an effect of the operation of our physical brains.

Bob,

Logic is an effect of something physical that may or may not exist? Something physical that we assume exists? That is, if "we" even means anything...

Then, according to this premise, logic has no way to arrive at truth. It can only arrive at assumptions by people who may not even exist.

:evil: 

(I can do this all day.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic is much too slow except for verification of thought chains and outing fallacies. If we know sundry fallacies we tend not to use them. Reason is the application of logic to data. Since data are immense one can keep pumping them in running circles around a logical construct. Reason needs good will and honesty.

--Brant

both Bob and Greg are ideologues, albeit quite different albeit informative and at least Bob keeps bringing up new stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Reason is the application of logic to data.

Brant,

Not to people whose God is falsification.

It goes something like this. The way you and I see it, we use reason.

The way these falsification guys see it, reason uses us. Hell, they aren't sure "we" even exist except as an assumption dictated by reason.

And the thing is, reason in that sense is another name for God. You will find (as you are finding) they are some of the most religious people in all humanity. For them, man proposes and God disposes...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now