The Atlas Shrugged sequence is actually happening

Quote from Gringinho:

Well, in paraconsistent logic you can have A = A and at the same time A = not A.

Besides, you should understand the Schrödinger's Cat problem.

Now go study...
:p
More...

Watching a person get himself all twisted up in contradictory thinking and bizarre paradox is truly funny...and I suppose a bit sad as well.

Poor young Gringo, as a budding computer science nerd, got his ass kicked a lot and had to delve into all manner of fantasy to escape.

I wonder if all the successful people in life realize that they need to understand paraconsistent logic before taking effective action.

Logic and philosophy are not that complex in terms of what is necessary to determine an effective course for one's life.

Much of systems philosophy was developed by closet socialists who want to establish the connected collective over the independent individual.

Gringo, you poor bastard, this will come off inflammatory and I don't mean it so. I rather mean this sincerely: as a result of your "two decades on philisophical forums" you are truly self-educated beyond your intelligence. You can continue to mentally jerk off to Schrodinger's Cat in the laboratory or you can go back to basics and come up with a integrated philosophy that actually works in your real day-to-day life.
 
ScottD,
that is exactly how I live - I do what I say, and I can rationalize what I do. That is also the strength and insight that philosophy gives in contrast to someone who are faith-based.

I can reason about my choices, not distracted by morality - but applying ethics to what I do.

Contradictions is exactly what you got in paraconsistent logic,
and paradoxes are what is englobed by dialethism.

Since you are continuing ignorant on both - I guess you never followed the links I gave you so that you could try to keep up.


Also, I think I mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-level_utilitarianism as a very good working model for "practical life", at least I mentioned it elsewhere.

You belittle systems science that you understand nothing of. Well, it never was for you anyway.

And as for poor ...
I created 5 companies in the period 1996-1999 and then I sold them late in 1999. I retired then - a few years before the age of 30 - and moved to Brazil. Been here ever since. My best new year's eve was on St. Martin Orient Beach when we were sailing around the islands there for 5.5 weeks. I've been to roughly 30 countries and around 170 cities. You can call me as poor as you like, but I like to think I have a rich life. I made a dozen of my university buddies millionaires together with me when I sold the companies I made. The prize was the highest ever in my country per head, and their fixed salaries were the highest in the country as well within that sector - but we were also involved in several world's first commercializations of telecommunications projects. We doubled the development department of the company that acquired my friends and the company rose more than 400% the next years ...

Call me poor, but I am doing allright, thanks. How about you? Are you "mentally rich"?
 
Quote from Gringinho:

ScottD,
that is exactly how I live - I do what I say, and I can rationalize what I do. That is also the strength and insight that philosophy gives in contrast to someone who are faith-based.

I can reason about my choices, not distracted by morality - but applying ethics to what I do.

Contradictions is exactly what you got in paraconsistent logic,
and paradoxes are what is englobed by dialethism.

Since you are continuing ignorant on both - I guess you never followed the links I gave you so that you could try to keep up.


Also, I think I mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-level_utilitarianism as a very good working model for "practical life", at least I mentioned it elsewhere.

You belittle systems science that you understand nothing of. Well, it never was for you anyway.

And as for poor ...
I created 5 companies in the period 1996-1999 and then I sold them late in 1999. I retired then - a few years before the age of 30 - and moved to Brazil. Been here ever since. My best new year's eve was on St. Martin Orient Beach when we were sailing around the islands there for 5.5 weeks. I've been to roughly 30 countries and around 170 cities. You can call me as poor as you like, but I like to think I have a rich life. I made a dozen of my university buddies millionaires together with me when I sold the companies I made. The prize was the highest ever in my country per head, and their fixed salaries were the highest in the country as well within that sector - but we were also involved in several world's first commercializations of telecommunications projects. We doubled the development department of the company that acquired my friends and the company rose more than 400% the next years ...

Call me poor, but I am doing allright, thanks. How about you? Are you "mentally rich"?
More...

Intersting link G, but isn't the flaw in that system that the best outcome is subjective. There have been many notable actors in history who have been labled as utilitarians (such as Stalin, Mao, and Hitler) who in thier minds thought they were doing the best for the most. There has to be something else that guides ethical action beyond a subjective utilitarian view, certainly not suggesting anything fantastical like a god, but perhaps some kind of derivation of natural law or humanist ideal(without sliding down the objectivist slope).
 
Mvic,
you need to view this with the realisation that just like IT IS a mixed economy - it IS a mix of systems that you need to apply to your daily decisions.

Let me explain. You learn something - but that doesn't mean that every situation is the same. There are also no absolutes - so you should always be ready to THINK - and not just judge by "principle". That means that any decision and interaction that you perform should be given some consideration - to a varying degree based on risk, importance etc.

I use bivalent systems when they are appropriate, applicable and helpful - otherwise I am much more flexible.

See also the "degree of truth" link.
I have also been talking about hypocrisy in some other threads - and you also need to understand what that means - that you ultimately have some type of egoism although you are helping others e.g.

Ahm, well - I guess that covers it more or less.
There are many aspects to successful "living" and "thinking" - so it is not something easily explained, but I think I've made quite a lot of posts that further explain this - if you were interested. My view has always been that I should be consistent in doing my best - ethics - but this also coincides with my personality of ENTJ and ENFJ.


The dictators and elitists of the world have all been more or less radical and delusional fanatics about that they were right. If I see I am wrong - I immediately admit that I was wrong. Then other people sometimes don't give up - e.g here on ET - and try to "get me" on the things where I know with certainty that I am right - and that has never resulted in "defeat". Having used the Internet since 1990 helps a little too... :)
 
Quote from Gringinho:

Like I pointed out, I find the Objectivists more akin to cult-followers than anything else. Sometimes social outcasts that are drawn or lured to the works of Ayn Rand and then become obsessed with them. That is not her fault - but it is in these persons - just like some people become natural leaders and others health care workers etc... yet others, like Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer [/B]
More...

I've been an Objectivist for the past 35 years, and have found out that it helps my trading. It gives me a proper mind-set for handling risk, There's so much more to Objectivism than the disputed cult factor. Objectivism is a set of ideals, traits, and morays, to be used as a blueprint for one'slife and dealing with fellow man. Do I know other Objectivists....sure, all the way to the top. Do I take their philosophy as pure gospel, much like the evangelical Christians who play with serpents....no way. We're not a cult. I was lucky to spend time with Ayn Rand before the end of my life. I learned more from her than I learned in my entire PhD program at Northwestern. For that, I will be eternal grateful.

Jeff
 
Quote from brettman9:

Starring:

Hank Paulson as Wesley Mouch
Ben Bernanke as Eugene Lawson
George W. Bush as Mr. Thompson
More...

T. Boone Pickens as Ellis Wyatt
Ross Perot as Midas Mulligan
Christopher Cox as Wet Nurse
Ron Paul as Hank Rearden
Aaron Copland (rip) as Richard Halley
Leonard Piekoff as Hugh Akston
Gringo The Brazilian Mind Bender as Dr. Simon Pritchett
Monica Lewinsky as Cheryl Brooks

..and of course myself as Ragnar Danneskjold :-)
 
nokomisjeff,
and the Objectivists that I have as friends are very, very honest people with great integrity like I said. They are politicians and judges.

However, I do manage to get farther than them in epistemology - and I think that having a "guideline" for what any person is doing in everyday life is important for "personal integrity" and taking decisions more efficiently. Just like I accept that for non-authoritarian personal religions; I have no objections to that.

However, I hope you accept that there ARE in fact "degrees of truth" and that there is an inherent hypocrisy to everything we do. I think more or less every modern philosopher recognizes that there is an element of egoism to everything we do, or that revolves around us.

I found that Objectivism was not for me, and that was primarily because I went as far down into epistemology as I could go - being interested in modelling and representing knowledge digitally. So, therefore I spent a lot of time going through the obvious epistemological theories. Objectivism just cuts short with some axioms - and that is not how I see things - nor is it coherent for every entity or phenomenon.

I also found Objectivism too aggressive - and not at all for me on many levels. Not that I shy away from anyone...

The world has actually evolved since the days of Ayn Rand - just like the days of the Jewish tribes...
and as nature shows us - you adapt or die.
:)
 
Well, firstly I am very pleasantly surprised at the level of thought and intellectualism exhibited in this thread.

I re-read the AS book last year and found it is be somewhat dreary this time around, but I am sure that is more a reflection upon me.

As to.............
"The Atlas Shrugged sequence is actually happening"

Buggered if I know really.

What I do know is that US gov failed to govern and that is what caused this mess.

US gov failed to protect it's citizens from known threats and as a result right now 8,000 US military and US civilians are dead and thousands upon thousands are wounded to the point where they will never live proper lives again.
Every night the biggest chunk of the homeless who sleep "rough" are ex military vets. It does'nt matter what war they belong to ... they are walking (shuffling) wounded.

Home Owners and small business proprietors are beside themselves with grief. And if they are not, they soon will be because this disaster is still in it's early stages and it insists on running until it exhausts all it's energy (imbalances)
There will not be a single sector of society that will remain untouched.
The wealthy are cutting their haircut as we speak.

All because US gov has failed to govern.

I watched one part of the game with interest over the years .... liars mortgages.
It was not difficult to see that sub-prime would eventually become the trigger in a colossal financial disaster, in the same manner that a small portion of HE is used to trigger a nuclear blast.

The two things that I failed to foresee were.........

... I always imagined that the Gov would one day wake-up and govern by outlawing liars mortgages.

... following on from the above I was dead wrong about just how long this whole mess took to be dragged out in the open.

Self serving interests are fine up to a point.
If you want to work harder and more cleverly than your neighbour then the fruits of your efforts will be spread over the greater community (including your neighbour)
That is the admirable foundation of US.
I do not expect life to be fair, that is too much to expect and enters the realms of fantasy.

I do not wish for over governance. Too much of a bad thing, remains just that ... too much of a bad thing.

But stupidity and blatant dishonesty is quite something else.

To destroy your own homeland in a series of foreseeable and therefore preventable actions is completely beyond my comprehension.

And if you care to take a cold hard look, you will see the similarity between the tragedy of 9-11 and the sub-primes.
Both were foreseeable and therefore both were preventable.

regards
f9
 
Quote from Gringinho:

nokomisjeff,
and the Objectivists that I have as friends are very, very honest people with great integrity like I said. They are politicians and judges.

However, I do manage to get farther than them in epistemology - and I think that having a "guideline" for what any person is doing in everyday life is important for "personal integrity" and taking decisions more efficiently. Just like I accept that for non-authoritarian personal religions; I have no objections to that.

However, I hope you accept that there ARE in fact "degrees of truth" and that there is an inherent hypocrisy to everything we do. I think more or less every modern philosopher recognizes that there is an element of egoism to everything we do, or that revolves around us.

I found that Objectivism was not for me, and that was primarily because I went as far down into epistemology as I could go - being interested in modelling and representing knowledge digitally. So, therefore I spent a lot of time going through the obvious epistemological theories. Objectivism just cuts short with some axioms - and that is not how I see things - nor is it coherent for every entity or phenomenon.

I also found Objectivism too aggressive - and not at all for me on many levels. Not that I shy away from anyone...

The world has actually evolved since the days of Ayn Rand - just like the days of the Jewish tribes...
and as nature shows us - you adapt or die.
:)
More...

I do accept that the public accepts that there are degrees of truth, and that's why the public is being led like a herd. If man cannot have an absolute, he is incapable of having a moral compass. The truth is as absolute as the any physical phenomena observable in the universe. The truth is as absolute as 2+2=4. Shades of truth are inherently lies. However, the worst kind of lies one can tell are to themselves.

Technologically, the world has evolved from the days of Ayn Rand, but man has not changed one iota since Aristotle held court on the side of the street, or when Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned.

Hypocrisy has many root causes, and many permutations and combinations. Hypocrisy is a result of inherent lies, shades of truth, and utter falsehoods.

There are very few of us Objectivists around, and the public finds us to be a curious lot. An interesting sidebar: I spent many, many years in the wheat pit before I went upstairs. While I was on the floor, I knew at least 10 Objectivists who were exchange members, and all were successful traders. Perhaps the Objectivist mind is wired differently, perhaps it's mere coincidence that one would find such a concentration under one roof.



Jeff
 
Quote from nokomisjeff:

I do accept that the public accepts that there are degrees of truth,............................ An interesting sidebar: I spent many, many years in the wheat pit before I went upstairs. While I was on the floor, I knew at least 10 Objectivists who were exchange members, and all were successful traders. Perhaps the Objectivist mind is wired differently, perhaps it's mere coincidence that one would find such a concentration under one roof.


Jeff
More...

Well written piece Jeff.

There is obviously more to wheat than just bread

regards
f9
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top