anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I wish Rand had not made such a war on the word "instinct." Everything becomes the word. (Everything bad in this case.) Here's a smart-ass one for ya': In the beginning there was the word... This constantly stifles discussion about concepts. Instinct is not the formal name of the Boogie Man except in O-Land... Michael 'Instinct'? A hold-all explanation for -any- actions and behavior which one finds can be explained by other means. It's a silly debate, no human is born knowing what anything is, what he has to do, nor how to do it. End of story. Why it's a boogie man, is determinists adore the notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 18 minutes ago, anthony said: A hold-all explanation for -any- actions and behavior which one finds can be explained by other means. Tony, That's not what instinct means. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 Dennis May was a determinist. From: "Dennis May" <determinism To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Instincts [Premises and emotions] Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:20:27 -0500. Barbara Branden wrote: Dennis, would you explain what you mean by << instincts>>? And why you think they exist in human beings? There are many different concepts of instincts that I don't know what you're referring to. The concept of "instincts" refers to a continuum of behaviors exhibited by animals. Lower creatures exhibit behavior largely genetically preprogrammed. As creatures become more complex their preprogrammed behavior is augmented by learned behavior. Note I said augmented, not replaced. As much as some philosophers don't want to believe it, humans are animals not far removed from those in the wild. The list of instinctual behaviors exhibited by humans to some degree or another is quite large. Some have been studied more than others, some are obvious, some subtle, and many are controversial to those who wish to place humans outside of their place in evolution. Some examples: Fear of snakes, spiders. Deep terror created by the sounds of some predators. Face recognition/beauty [Bill Dwyer mentioned]. Sexual attraction related to scents. Other aspects of sexual attraction. Fear of heights [some people genetically don't have it]. Infants sucking. Revulsion/attraction to certain tastes and smells and their changing nature with age or pregnancy. Blinking when an object approaches. Fear of inhaling fluids [some man-made fluids can be breathed]. The primary lesson in all of this is: you cannot ignore evolutionary biology when you are talking about humans. We are a product of that evolution and we are far from pure-reasoning creatures. Reason [learned behavior] can overcome some instincts. Many phobias or other mental anomalies are the result of genetic error involving instincts. If these anomalies are helpful they are passed on to offspring, if not they are a burden which may impair reproduction. I fully expect that some version of autism allowing fantastic memory or calculational abilities will become part of what it is to be human many generations from now. Dennis May Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, That's not what instinct means. Michael Right, Michael. Of course not. I was clear that 'instinct' - as commonly accepted - is used as a catch-all or grab-bag, to explain (or excuse and justify) a whole range of human reflexes, impulses, acts and behavior. Which are anything but 'instinctive', when analyzed for causation. A variable, subjective 'meaning' iow. An objective definition: "instinct, an inborn impulse or motivation to action typically performed in response to specific external stimuli. Today instinct is generally described as a stereotyped, apparently unlearned, genetically determined behaviour pattern". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 8 hours ago, Peter said: Dennis May was a determinist. Apparently so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 From what I read of Dennis's post, he was not a determinist. 10 hours ago, Peter said: (quoting Dennis May): Reason [learned behavior] can overcome some instincts. That is not a statement a determinist writes. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 btw - This thing about determinism--both for and against--is another example of the error of reifying the part and calling it the whole. Many parts of human beings come as "the given" (already determined) and other parts are chosen by us. All throughout, there is one area that impacts both and it is generally ignored in O-Land: growth. It is a habit in O-Land to attribute growth to learning from experience, but it isn't the same. One does not learn eyesight from experience the same way as one learns to ride a bike from experience. One grows into eyesight and one cannot not grow into eyesight, however, one can refuse to learn to ride a bike. Learning how to see is instinctual. Learning how to ride a bike is not. Michael 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 UK plans to scrap all COVID-19 laws and moves to accept the virus like the flu: Report "British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly planning to do away with all COVID-19 laws in the United Kingdom as case numbers drop and the country learns to treat the virus like a seasonal flu. "The government is considering ending all legally enforced policies in England and is instead moving to a guidance-based system, a source told the Daily Mail. Laws that have existed since the beginning of the pandemic, including enforced self-isolation after an infection, could come to a halt, the source said." read more here UK plans to scrap all COVID-19 laws and moves to accept the virus like the flu: Report WWW.WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly planning to do away with all COVID-19 laws in the United Kingdom as case numbers drop... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 17 hours ago, Peter said: Dennis May was a determinist. The list of instinctual behaviors exhibited by humans to some degree or another is quite large. Some have been studied more than others, some are obvious, some subtle, and many are controversial to those who wish to place humans outside of their place in evolution. Some examples: Fear of snakes, spiders. Deep terror created by the sounds of some predators. Face recognition/beauty [Bill Dwyer mentioned]. Sexual attraction related to scents. Other aspects of sexual attraction. Fear of heights [some people genetically don't have it]. Infants sucking. Revulsion/attraction to certain tastes and smells and their changing nature with age or pregnancy. Blinking when an object approaches. Fear of inhaling fluids [some man-made fluids can be breathed]. Because it is this way (by human doings), therefore it *had* to be this way. No. And not necessarily. "Necessity" (re: the metaphysical given, nature) . v. "contingency" (man made - could have eventuated many another way). Face recognition/beauty. A white infant was adopted or stolen, and raised to an adult in the deep bush by African tribesmen (uh, tribespeople), never seeing as she grew, the face of any other person of another race, including her own. What is her standard of beauty or face recognition, when older? A white person's? No way. She will relate to African standards of beauty. Meeting a white the first time, his-her face will look insipid or ugly or indistinguishable from other whites, to her. Infants suckling: reflexive activity when introduced to a nipple at the start, then associated with 'good stuff' ever after, to become an habitual act. Snakes, spiders: how does one know they are to be feared, if not by previous and learned knowledge, from adult warnings, hearing myths and tales and seeing pictures; otherwise, to a young, total novice who has nothing of those influences inculcated, the creatures could seem as cute as kittens, to be fondled. (Additionally, they look creepy and repugnant: slithering without legs or scurrying about with excess legs, completely unlike one's observation of other animals. So, hundreds of generations of humans could certainly have shared equal visual repugnance, giving rise to myths about their 'evil'). Blinking: A reflexive, biological action to protect the eyes from objects. Sounds of predators: Learned. You had to ¬know¬ what a predator is- i.e. dangerous - prior to fearing the sound it makes. Phobias: psychological, not instinctual. "Instinct" by humans rarely or never stands up to scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 52 minutes ago, anthony said: Face recognition/beauty. A white infant was adopted or stolen, and raised to an adult in the deep bush by African tribesmen (uh, tribespeople), never seeing as she grew, the face of any other person of another race, including her own. What is her standard of beauty or face recognition, when older? A white person's? No way. She will relate to African standards of beauty. Meeting a white the first time, his-her face will look insipid or ugly or unidentifiable to her. So the argument is that face recognition/beauty is habituated/learned , that her 'standard' will be learned and informed by her choices among the concretes she is exposed to and her choices will reflect her preferences/standards that will be ranked and limited by the concrete instances of perception of and only of the tribespeople. When did the tribespeople teach her the need for beauty recognition or how do they teach her what beauty 'is' ? This doesn't say much for individuality , and btw I heard Dr Livingstone was a stone cold hunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: btw - This thing about determinism--both for and against--is another example of the error of reifying the part and calling it the whole. Many parts of human beings come as "the given" (already determined) and other parts are chosen by us. All throughout, there is one area that impacts both and it is generally ignored in O-Land: growth. It is a habit in O-Land to attribute growth to learning from experience, but it isn't the same. One does not learn eyesight from experience the same way as one learns to ride a bike from experience. One grows into eyesight and one cannot not grow into eyesight, however, one can refuse to learn to ride a bike. Learning how to see is instinctual. Learning how to ride a bike is not. Michael The biological state of man is a given, what one does with one's mind is not. His body 'grows' deterministically (biologically), his acts of mind and following actions are not pre-determined. The lesson you can see all through in this thread. This - therefore - that. Wrong. A pandemic did not ¬have to¬, causally, be followed by draconian measures by Governments : deterministically. A vaccine program does not "determine" that EVERYbody must be forced to get it. The bureaucrats and people who assumed all those and went along obediently, are the determinists. Those opposing, generally are the free-willed. The whole pandemic exercise has been one gross, deterministic undertaking. This is certainly the era of determinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 32 minutes ago, anthony said: The biological state of man is a given, what one does with one's mind is not. His body 'grows' deterministically (biologically), his acts of mind and following actions are not pre-determined. The lesson you can see all through in this thread. This - therefore - that. Wrong. A pandemic did not ¬have to¬, causally, be followed by draconian measures by Govt.s : deterministically. A vaccine program does not determine that EVERYbody must be forced to get it. The bureaucrats and people who assumed all those and went along obediently, are the determinists. Those opposing, generally are the free-willed. The whole pandemic exercise has been one gross deterministic undertaking. This is the era of determinism. Tony, When discussing reason, you are laser focused. When discussing instinct, you go all over the place. Case studies and examples become principles, one principle need not agree with another, exceptions become universals, you conflate opinions with facts, higher-level abstractions become axiomatic, and on and on and on. I doubt you know what an instinct is and I further doubt you are interested. I have no doubt you want to kill the word dead. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 10 minutes ago, tmj said: So the argument is that face recognition/beauty is habituated/learned , that her 'standard' will be learned and informed by her choices among the concretes she is exposed to and her choices will reflect her preferences/standards that will be ranked and limited by the concrete instances of perception of and only of the tribespeople. When did the tribespeople teach her the need for beauty recognition or how do they teach her what beauty 'is' ? This doesn't say much for individuality , and btw I heard Dr Livingstone was a stone cold hunk. You can't know what you don't know. Miss Mars, 2617, would be horribly ugly to an Earthling of that time. Until gradually accustoming himself with the Martian race. One doesn't get taught beauty. Features, proportions, stature, skin-color, etc, of one individual, that please one's eye, is learned (observed and compared) aesthetics. Instinctual, a standard of beauty, is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 But whence 'beauty'? You are talking about how a standard is acquired, built or modulated but blank out on the 'thing' standardized (even personally). I am not even arguing that what you are saying vis a vis standard building is incorrect , just as argument it doesn't feel integrated , doesn't apply the same logic to all the terms used. The concept of beauty is epistemological , man made, but as concept it must refer to some ' thing' metaphysically given , no ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, When discussing reason, you are laser focused. When discussing instinct, you go all over the place. Case studies and examples become principles, one principle need not agree with another, you conflate opinions with facts, and on and on. I doubt you know what an instinct is and I further doubt you are interested. I have no doubt you want to kill the word dead. Michael Please, please give me more examples of human "instincts"! I am very interested and like a challenge. So far it has been easy. As long as this: an objective definition is agreed upon: Heritable knowledge; inborn, innate knowledge, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 26 minutes ago, anthony said: Please, please give me more examples of human "instincts"! I am very interested and like a challenge. Tony, To play word games with? To compete and find out who can self-congratulate the loudest? That's all you have done so far re instinct. And that's been over years. Besides, I have given you plenty of information to look at over the years about this with oodles of examples--I've done that several times--and you just won't look. Sorry. My interest is conceptual, not semantic or competitive. Different strokes for different folks... So I'll keep studying and learning about human nature and hopefully become a great fiction writer one day. And you will keep crowing and whatever else rings it for ya'. See? We don't have to agree, not even on what we are discussing. You and I are not talking about the same thing. So win-win. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 Just now, tmj said: But whence 'beauty'? You are talking about how a standard is acquired, built or modulated but blank out on the 'thing' standardized (even personally). I am not even arguing that what you are saying vis a vis standard building is incorrect , just as argument it doesn't feel integrated , doesn't apply the same logic to all the terms used. The concept of beauty is epistemological , man made, but as concept it must refer to some ' thing' metaphysically given , no ? I'm not going down the path of "beauty", per se. The "concept of beauty" as far as I can tell, is metaphysical-perceptual-aesthetic. I go back to ¬what and how else¬, would this girl/woman - who has only known black men and women since a baby, perceive "beauty" to be? A blonde Scandinavian she has never seen or heard about? So where are her 'instincts' of beauty? Having no - innate - experience/knowledge of anybody else? If she doesn't -know- she cannot know any other standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 35 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, To play word games with? To compete and find out who can self-congratulate the loudest? That's all you have done so far re instinct. And that's been over years. Sorry. My interest is conceptual, not semantic or competitive. Different strokes for different folks... So I'll keep studying and learning about human nature and hopefully become a great fiction writer one day. And you will keep crowing and whatever else rings it for ya'. See? We don't have to agree, not even on what we are discussing. You and I are not talking about the same thing. So win-win. Michael You have me wrong. This is not about ME. (and not about anyone) I like ideas. I like them particularly when placed against reality. (And absolutely loathe what the idea of determinism - in which 'human instinctualism' has a minor role - does to individuals and masses of people, in reality, very apparent now. ) 'Instinct' has a delimited meaning. If this is going to be debatable, we should stick to it. Or else would someone please contend with the definitions I found? Only then can one put up instances of 'human instinct' against it to test. That winning and word games is silly, time-wasting I don't bother with. What I think of as intellectual machismo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 1 hour ago, anthony said: As long as this: an objective definition is agreed upon: Heritable knowledge; inborn, innate knowledge, etc. Deja vu? I have a feeling this conversation has happened here before, and not too long ago... instinct (n.) early 15c., "a prompting" (a sense now obsolete), from Old French instinct (14c.) or directly from Latin instinctus "instigation, impulse, inspiration," noun use of past participle of instinguere "to incite, impel," from in- "into, in, on, upon" (from PIE root *en "in") + stinguere "prick, goad," from PIE *steig- "to prick, stick, pierce" (see stick (v.)). Meaning "animal faculty of intuitive perception" is from mid-15c., from notion of "natural prompting." General sense of "natural tendency" is first recorded 1560s. Instinct is said to be blind--that is, either the end is not consciously recognized by the animal, or the connection of the means with the end is not understood. Instinct is also, in general, somewhat deficient in instant adaptability to extraordinary circumstances. [Century Dictionary] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 7 hours ago, ThatGuy said: UK plans to scrap all COVID-19 laws and moves to accept the virus like the flu: Report "British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly planning to do away with all COVID-19 laws in the United Kingdom as case numbers drop and the country learns to treat the virus like a seasonal flu. "The government is considering ending all legally enforced policies in England and is instead moving to a guidance-based system, a source told the Daily Mail. Laws that have existed since the beginning of the pandemic, including enforced self-isolation after an infection, could come to a halt, the source said." read more here UK plans to scrap all COVID-19 laws and moves to accept the virus like the flu: Report WWW.WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is reportedly planning to do away with all COVID-19 laws in the United Kingdom as case numbers drop... I've wondered how they would backpedal out of the authoritarian COVID measures all over the world. Easing out is most probable, hoping that everyone forgets all the hard stances taken. I also think changes in policy mean they have been faced with good evidence that the policies were bad, and they cannot keep doubling down... even the people of today could not be fooled for much longer. So I think this will happen all over the world... a gradual easing up on the restrictions, without any acknowledgement of failure. I hope people do not let it go, because I think a lot of people are on the edge of waking up. If they are allowed to forget what has happened, they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 19, 2022 Author Share Posted January 19, 2022 13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: That is not a statement a determinist writes. He was an interesting guy, and an ex-serviceman if I remember correctly. I probably have forty threads he commented on. Not a determinist? Here are two examples disagreeing with that and notice his web address. He was a “Hard Determinist.” Peter Dennis May wrote: "I accept the 3 primary axioms of Objectivism as long as Volition is left out of Consciousness. As George H. Smith has observed the validity of Volition hinges on both philosophical and scientific claims. This removes it from axiom status. I would include Causality in my list of Axioms because I don't believe a corollary status under Identity does it justice. If Volition is not axiomatic, all assumptions derived from assuming volition as a valid model become suspect. This is the heart of one of the great debates which Objectivism must deal with." End of Dennis's quote from 2001? From: "Dennis May" <determinism@hotmail.com> To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: Re: Dennis, I Hope You're Really Determined to Write That Book Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 11:24:45 -0600. Keyser Soze wrote: >...but of the philosophical relevance of an ethical system in what appears to me to be an absence of true choice in Determinism as I understand it. If ever there were a potential convert to Determinism in Atlantis, it most definitely would be me. But I haven't yet heard an argument that gets me off the fence. My sticking point is that Determinism gives the impression that we are fated, malleable automatons. My views are from the Hard Determinist camp and do not necessarily agree with those who are Soft Determinists, Compatibilists, or other non-Hard Determinists who none the less profess some agreement with Determinism. I have never read any Hard Determinist literature [just overviews] other than physics. I am unaware of any 20th or 21st century writings supporting hard determinism as related to philosophy. I sure they exist in some form but I have never seen them. The attempt to escape fatalism in its many variations is part of most philosophies and religions. There is psychological fatalism [which exists on all fronts] and worldview fatalism. I assume your concerns are about the latter. I would not ignore worldview fatalism in places other than Hard Determinism. I am not convinced that any philosophy or religion has presented anything which consistently and logically addresses fatalism with any success. What happens instead is faith, unclear reasoning, appeals to authority, or putting the question off as an unknown [never to be known]. Rather than delay or avoid the issue a Hard Determinist would make the most minimal assumptions based on the evidence and go from there. I would place the philosophical or religious attempt to define first causes into this same discussion. Materialist Fatalism [Hard Determinism] as it is called seems like a dead end philosophy because: Q. It is a hard sell. A. Since when does selling well make things right? Q. Reason cannot exist. A. If you don't assume volition at the outset but physics based feedback forces, reason does in fact exist as a subjective process. Q. Ethics cannot exist. A. How ethics are used is in no way changed. Individual perception of ethics in relation to fatalism occurs in and between all philosophies and religions. I don't see how blessings by some unknown god gives any more meaning to life than consistent application of causality. Hard Determinism concerns the root of all things. This root is important for consistent and logical development. Ethics exists at the further integration level. I have found that my day to day existence is very little affected by knowing that at the quantum level my pinky finger is superluminally connected to the inside of George H. Smith's nose whether or not another finger is already there. Take some consolation in the fact that we are and will always be in a learning process. I find nothing remarkable in the idea that subjectively we reason all the time but at the fundamental objective level the subjective mind is along for the ride. The subjective mind is objectively real but does not have the freedom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 19, 2022 Author Share Posted January 19, 2022 Yawn. It’s getting late, but here is one more old letter and then I will stop. I went looking for something else from Dennis May but instead I found something I wrote referencing him. And Brant Gaede! Dennis worked for ConAgra Corporation. We corresponded periodically even after Atlantis went down. I think he enjoyed my dumb parody 21 years ago. I think the Monica I referenced was Monica Lewinski. Peter From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Determinists do it Better Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:24:22 GMT. Brant wrote, thinking I meant him and taking exception to me calling some list-writers, hate-filled monsters: "This is a generalized, collectivistic slander. I reject it completely. --Brant Gaede" Following is an anything-goes homage to a brilliant man, Dennis May. It may be inappropriate for younger children. Enjoy it, you Running Dog Capitalist Lackey. Just try and reject this, Brant! Headline from DC's premier newspaper, The Washington Times: Fay of the Triffods? Today, the Mega Corporation, ProAgra Incorporated, announced a new line of corn seed guaranteed to thrive, no matter what a farmer's insect problems may be. When a mere three inches tall, the genetically engineered corn plants develop a "beak" that quickly hardens into a horny, polysaccharide "chitinous" material. Renowned scientist, and former crooner on the old Jack Benny Program, Dennis (The Menace) Day said, "I developed this wonderful new plant using Deterministic Epistemology. Don't ask me to explain that, because it is just too complicated. What I have done is to develop a plant that not only, does not need insecticides, it would not grow as quickly if insects were not available for the plant to catch and eat." “Mr. Day demonstrated the corn plant's abilities, and gave us a running commentary as we filmed," said the lovely correspondent, Monica Submissive. Voices transcribed from the film: "Remember what you promised me, Babe?" "Sure, Dennis. You know I want you. Ssshh! The tape is rolling." "OK," said Dennis pointing to the cameraman, "Keep it focused on the beak." A butterfly hovered near the corn silk, partially hiding the beak. Suddenly with a snap, the butterfly is bitten and swallowed. "Did you get that," said a gleeful Mr. May, "Stockholm, here I come!" "You want it now," said Monica? "No, you idiot!" snapped Dennis. He turns to the camera. "This new variety of corn will eat any insects that come near it. I can see that there may be some confusion among the world's scientists that since I support determinism and a neural network theory of knowledge that the neural network of my corn model fails, if determinism fails at some level. Crap! That is not the case at all. The neural network consists of very large elements (cells) which can be seen with the aided eye and studied individually in the lab, in theoretical models, and duplicated in function with computers, large pots of water, and microwave ovens. It is best if eaten with salt and butter. My corn is designed to be able to defend itself one day after sprouting. Of course, as the plant grows you will need to keep household pets out of the corn fields. When it is one foot high, it should be able to deter any wild animals such as raccoons, and at six feet high, even deer are fair game. And the corn is delicious as food for humans or livestock," said Mr. Day. "Harvesting can be accomplished with an International Harvester tractor and a high caliber rifle." Mr. Day is reported to be on the short list of Nobel Prize candidates. Peter Taylor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 8 hours ago, Peter said: He was an interesting guy, and an ex-serviceman if I remember correctly. I probably have forty threads he commented on. Not a determinist? Here are two examples disagreeing with that and notice his web address. He was a “Hard Determinist.” Peter Peter, He's not a consistent determinist, that's for sure. But, frankly, I'm loathe to go into it. I weary when the argument starts becoming who is the One True [fill in the blank] and one slaps a lot of "isms" and "ists" on things. Or when one is a hard this and soft that. (Why on earth would a determinist need a metaphor to characterize himself? Does Hard Determinism have a physical property of being difficult to penetrate and solid? This comment may be too in the weeds, though, for the real humor to shine through. Here's a hint. There's a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen called Metaphors We Live By that goes into all this. Lakoff is an asshole, but this book is good.) If I were to argue about his Hard Determinism (notice the capital H and capital D), I would not start with whether volition is axiomatic--where he is entrenched and in fighting mode. I would start with how on earth he arrives at axioms in the first place. From his usage in what you posted, an axiom is simply another form of faith. Then he goes on to the conflicts, which become what are the True Axioms, much like what is the One True God. As an example, notice that he says: "I accept the 3 primary axioms of Objectivism as long as Volition is left out of Consciousness." That's a statement of faith (acceptance)--a religious statement at that with capitalized deities (Objectivism, Volition, Consciousness)--no matter what else one calls it. And in arguments like that, words will fly until the guns and swords come out. That part never changes. Dennis used to post here on OL and he tangled with a college kid named SoAMadDeathWish. I presume she was a college kid because she was woke before woke was a thing, as progressive as all get out, and used a female doll icon. I call her "she" since that is how she presented herself, but I have no way of knowing for sure the gender of that troll. I eventually had to ban her for gaming the forum (technical spam-like stuff), but she was feisty when she was active. She ended up running Dennis off of OL by calling him a "crank." I know this for sure since I communicated with him offline about it. One other comment on what you posted. It's a bit silly, but something in my brain wonders about the goings-on in the minds of people who ignore things like the following. Dennis wrote: 8 hours ago, Peter said: (quoting Dennis May): Q. It is a hard sell. A. Since when does selling well make things right? Now when I was young, very young, I learned that periods (.) were for statements and questions marks (?) were for questions. However, Dennis uses a statement as his question and a question as his answer, which should be a statement. It makes me wonder, if a person does that with elementary grammar (punctuation) without noticing, does the person do that kind of switcheroo with other basic rules he learned? Like, say, with axioms? So rather than "Hard Determinist," in my own mind, I find the term "Creative Determinist" better. Except to be "creative," one has to have volition... Ah me... What a mess... On your next post, the one about the predator corn, what a delight. When you get creative, you get going. That was very entertaining... I loved it... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 "There's a chance..." The deterministic inevitability of: this - therefore ...that. You might infect a hamster, it might infect you. Sorry about that. (Why haven't they culled human beings also to "stop the spread". Oh, they have?) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjsiO2ug7_1AhX98LsIHYDwCMIQvOMEKAB6BAgPEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com%2Fnews%2Fhong-kong%2Fhealth-environment%2Farticle%2F3163942%2Fcoronavirus-hong-kong-hamster-cull-commences&usg=AOvVaw2lbYs4CzTArRUvgWICl1hD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now