Search Ideas
1635 ideas match your query.:
Rand writes (p. 161):
The rational (the good) has nothing to gain from the irrational (the evil), except a share of its failures and crimes; the irrational has everything to gain from the rational: a share of its achievements and values. An industrialist does not need the help of a burglar in order to succeed; a burglar needs the industrialist’s achievement in order to exist at all. What collaboration is possible between them and to what end?
…
Consider the case of a business partnership: if one partner is honest and the other is a swindler, the latter contributes nothing to the success of the business; but the reputation of the former disarms the victims and provides the swindler with a wide-scale opportunity which he could not have obtained on his own.
I agree with her message that good shouldn’t collaborate with evil, but I don’t think this example works well. The reason somebody might go into business with a swindler is that they are tempted because the swindler does have something to offer them.
Maybe the swindler has a lot of money and offers to invest. The honest man might be too tempted to pass that up.
I do think the honest man should look for money elsewhere. But in such a case, it’s not true that he had “nothing” to gain from this partnership. It might be more accurate to say that there’s a net loss, or that overall the partnership is not worth it.
As I recall from some of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, Rand knew all this – it might just be a matter of wording things more clearly.
Further reading:
@lola-trimble (as I recall) asked, what is an example of a principle? There’s the principle of pronouncing judgment when silence could reasonably be interpreted as sanction of evil: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/how-does-one-lead-a-rational-life-in-an-irrational-society/
@tom-nassis asked, when can you compromise? https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html
It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one's product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one's demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one's product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.
There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one's property.
Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.
Over time, the substances or activities change your brain chemistry, and you become desensitized to their effects. You then need more to produce the same effect.
There could be a small grain of truth in this explanation when translated into epistemologically proper terms and divorced from hardware specifics.
Usually, when something is fun, that means you engage with it and learn from it. As the fun wanes, you learn less and naturally direct your attention elsewhere. Think of a video game you’ve gotten really good at: first it’s fun, then it gets boring. Boredom means the game doesn’t solve your problems anymore, it doesn’t fit into your problem situation anymore. So you play another game or do something else entirely.
But with addiction, this feedback mechanism seems to work differently: instead of getting bored and looking for stimulation elsewhere, the addict looks for more stimulation from the same activity.
I don’t think that alone means my interpretation of HTV is implausible. We’re bound to find contradictions eventually. In a good book like BoI, they’re just rare, so when we do find them, they go against the bulk of the philosophy.
I see why you would interpret the BoI quote in that way, but in the context of the whole philosophy your interpretation is implausible.
How can we tell whether my interpretation is implausible or whether Deutsch really does contradict himself?
I don’t think it’s enough to point out that the quote that (I think) contradicts his philosophy would, if I am right, indeed contradict his philosophy. We’re bound to find contradictions eventually. So I think we’d need some independent reasoning.
Btw, the discussion about HTV has largely moved to #3780 and its children. I’m going to summarize your criticisms there, and I suggest continuing there.
It seems that you've taken the idea of hard to vary as saying that the process of choosing between competing theories is just about measuring how much of this trait they have. One clearly wouldn’t get better explanations from doing that, as it would just be a mechanical way of judging theories.
Yes, but as I understood Deutsch, this process of choosing happens after one has conjectured and criticized a bunch of explanations. I don’t think he suggests that the application of the HTV criterion makes theories better, only that we should use it to choose between explanations after they have been guessed and improved.
So the process of choosing between already existing explanations really is “just about measuring how much of this trait they have.”
Veritula implements unanimous consent …
This notion also maps onto Ayn Rand’s idea that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” (From The Virtue of Selfishness.)
There’s a reason rationality means lack of conflict.
@tyler-mills, both bounties are over.
At the time of writing, the idea saying to keep your job (#3638) has 4 pending criticisms.
The idea saying to quit and do research (#3639) has no pending criticisms.
So at this moment, the rational choice would be to quit your job. Hope this brings you some clarity.
It’s contrived beyond the specific example of the guitarist from the dark ages. You’ll never run out of examples that could be challenging for me to answer. I can’t give you all the solutions ahead of time. That doesn’t mean problems aren’t soluble.
All I can tell you is that you’re a problem-solving engine, so it’s possible possible for you to enjoy life 100% of the time, and that this is worth striving for.
It’s always possible to make a living doing something you enjoy. But if you’re looking for a guarantee, you will be disappointed.
When a revision addresses a criticism, you don’t counter-criticize the criticism, you deselect it at the bottom of the revision form.
To be sure, this isn’t a big deal. But try revising #3908 again, just to practice.
Tyler says:
No preview necessarily, or the first sentence upon mouse-over could work. I’m imagining a structural view independent of the main view. (Though still suggest looking at columns for each idea in the main view).
@tyler-mills says:
I keep coming back to a graph-based presentation. Every comment a node, edges red if ending in criticisms. I crave a way to see structurally how many red criticism threads and grey comment threads are stemming from a given idea. The red ones could be bold and bright if they lead to an uncriticized idea, else dim and thin. Then we can see at a glance which ideas are sources of more criticisms, and/or hold greater opportunities for further criticism — can see which ideas are “deeper” niches, one might say (..!). Have greater evolvability…
Basically not doable for the user with the current bubble+hashtag method. But again it could just be an optional view. I think I mentioned I find that Kialo does a cool job with their sun dial diagrams (which are optional).
You need to mark your submission as a criticism if you want it to be eligible for a payout from the bounty.
Tyler explained what he dislikes about his job in the ‘About’ section of the discussion, which is quoted in the bounty terms:
Many of the tasks I am assigned seem eminently automatable, and performing them is excruciating for me (though I recognize my good fortune overall). Even when there are micro-problems which require creativity to solve, I still find the process painful, given that they are other people's problems rather than my own. It is the same pain of school: creativity forced to work toward answers to questions not asked.
But what is the import of the story to the present debate?
‘The Simplest Thing in the World’ has themes about fear and safety vs self-actualization. For example:
What’s the quality that all the people you know have got, the outstanding quality in all of them? Their motive power? Fear. Not fear of anyone in particular, just fear. Just a great, blind force without object. Malicious fear. The kind that makes them want to see you suffer. Because they know that they, too, will have to suffer and it makes it easier, to know that you do also. The kind that makes them want to see you being small and funny and smutty. Small people are safe. It’s not really fear, it’s more than that. Like Mr. Crawford, for instance, who’s a lawyer and who’s glad when a client of his loses a suit. He’s glad, even though he loses money on it; even though it hurts his reputation. He’s glad, and he doesn’t even know that he’s glad. God, what a story there is in Mr. Crawford! If you could put him down on paper as he is, and explain just why he is like that, and . . .
… people go their whole lives resisting their passions, and are secure.
Physically maybe. I can’t look into those people’s minds but I suspect they don’t ever really feel psychologically secure. It takes a certain kind of mind to have physical security, rather than fulfillment, as one’s main concern for one’s whole life. https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-esteem.html
It’s essentially living like an animal.
… my bad for combining ideas in #3819 …
No worries, and good catch. What you could do, to clean up this branch, is revise #3819 to remove this part:
The concerns are over the tradeoffs of leaving the day job (finances, impact to employability, etc.).
And then, before submitting the revision form, uncheck criticism #3834 underneath the form.
It’s not strictly required – there are cases where joining multiple criticisms into one comment is fine – but I almost always recommend splitting them, especially for beginners.
You should reach far higher in life than merely ensuring food/water/shelter. It’s a pretty elementary concern and easily met.
Well, this is starting to sound a bit contrived. But even in the dark ages, people could be guitarists and find a job they love. Or they could create a new job they loved.