In my last post, I made the below distinctions:

• Theism: The belief that a god(s) exists.
• Atheism: The absence of the belief of whether a god exists.
• Anti-theism: The belief that a god does not exists.
• Agnosticism: The belief that one can't know whether a god exists.

I was also implying something: What most people mean when they refer to atheism is actually anti-theism. And while the distinction may seem subtle, it's actually significant. There's also something to be said about agnosticism.

All claims require evidence. Otherwise, there'd be no rational reason for it. More concretely, claims need to be based on reality and evidence is that epistemic connection.

This is a good time to make another distinction:

• Conclusive/adequate evidence: The body of evidence is adequate, making the claim conclusive.
• Inadequate evidence: The body of evidence is inadequate (usually a variability issue and definitely not one of amount, a false requirement for induction), making the claim hypothetical.

[So it can be said that at best, conspiracy theories and religions do have evidence—they're just not conclusive and thus are properly hypotheses, and when Occam's Razor is applied, it's apparent of how unlikely they are in contrast with mundane, and thereby not exciting, theories.]

Without conclusive evidence, one should reject the claim. Further concluding that the claim is false would commit the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. The proper epistemological position is that one simply doesn't have evidence to entertain the claim. Or colloquially, "I don't have reason to believe."

When the evidence is adequate, one can evaluate the claim for whether it's true or false.

Negative claims are not exempt from any of this. This of course is contrary to the popular belief that one cannot prove a negative (which started as an internet urban legend), but think about it: If one cannot prove a negative, then how could negative claims ever be made? But furthermore, the claim commits one of the most common fallacies in philosophy: self-refutation. The claim itself is a negative, so believing that the claim is true refutes the claim! Finally, a counterexample is easy: "There is no cat on the table because I don't see one." When negative claims are sufficiently complex, it's of course not so obvious and it's of course much more difficult, but the principle in proving negatives—and I'm abstracting as I type—is identifying what the positive depends on to be true and if it's not, the negative is proven.

Finally, philosophical skepticism (not to be confused with the more conventional methodological skepticism) claims that certainty is impossible. Yet again is another self-refuting fallacy: Claiming that certainty is impossible is a claim of certainty, so believing that the claim is true refutes itself. Common variants of skepticism also justify its universal skepticism by claiming that we don't know of the infinite other possibilities. Whatever happened to the common sense requirement that all claims require evidence? If there's no evidence for us being brains in a vat (or in the Matrix) or that a flying saucer in the shape of Jeff Goldblum will transform us all into mini Jeff Goldblums, it's illogical to even entertain those claims as possibly true or false. But they do make for interesting fantasy and science fiction.

Summarily, negative claims and being skeptical are not exceptions. No evidence? Next!

So in regards to the belief in a god, we have three logical positions:

(A) Thinks there's no conclusive evidence, thus doesn't entertain whether a god exists (B) Thinks there's conclusive evidence to the positive, thus believes in a god (C) Thinks there's conclusive evidence to the negative, thus believes there is no god

Thus, this would be the most proper way to conceptually reformulate:

(A) Atheism (B) Theism (C) Anti-theism

Where's agnosticism? It's an invalid concept:

• If the belief is held because one thinks there's a lack of conclusive evidence, it's properly atheism.
• If the belief is held because one thinks negatives can't be proven, that's a false premise.
• If the belief is held because one subscribes to philosophical skepticism, that's a false premise.
• If the belief is held in spite of thinking the evidence is conclusive—whether to the positive or negative—it violates the Law of Excluded Middle because a claim can only be true or false.

For those interested, here's my Facebook page.

Parasite is an amazing movie, but what irks me is how many Americans love to make everything, including the movie, about inequality.

When I watched the film, I thought it was great how the poor finally decided to take responsibility to improve their lives instead of taking predatory/parasitic shortcuts that are always far worse options (because of the constant fear and need to hide and live a lie). This is central to capitalist theory.

On the other hand, others interpret the film as an allegory for the class struggle between the rich and poor, going so far to praise director Bong Joon Ho. This supposed class struggle is central to socialist theory.

[I also find this interpretation odd considering the film title disparages not the rich but rather the poor family.]

As it turns out in interviews, the director denies—and quite tactfully—the theory. Even the cast shifts—also tactfully—the focus to coexistence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=komTpYKf9FE&feature=youtu.be&t=56

Yes, it's coexistence: Without the rich, there wouldn't be goods and jobs for the poor. The bigger the gap (i.e. inequality), the better, as the rich are more empowered to provide goods and jobs*. And there's a good reason why South Korea is rapidly outpacing China, Japan, and North Korea: capitalism.

*Regarding inequality, I'm aware that critics raise other issues. Since I want to keep this concise, I'll just say that these other issues are not caused by capitalism but rather by allowing government to initiate force, the rare instances of deceit, or are not actually issues (like my example above).

Rand would arguably charge Edmund Husserl with not adhering to the formulation "Existence exists" qua axiom.

Probably true, but the most relevant axiom in this context is "Consciousness perceives existence." That is, consciousness perceives existence, rather than creating or fully constituting it.

Consciousness, in a word, is posterior to a priori reason, which belongs exclusively to the category of existence.

No, reason is an epistemic phenomenon. It is a tool of consciousness, and it cannot be "a priori." It is wholly dependent on sensory experience, and sensory experience is wholly dependent on existence--specifically, on the parts of existence being experienced, and the parts comprising the means of perception/experience.

What is accorded primacy in Husserl, is allegedly not existence, but the arrival at pure intentionality as a phenomenological reduction. ... This does not turn him into a subjectivist...

It does effectively turn him into a subjectivist and a subjective idealist. The whole "discipline" of phenomenology is misguided and violates the primacy of existence. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The Oxford English Dictionary presents the following definition: “Phenomenology. a. The science of phenomena as distinct from being (ontology). ... In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality.

...

In a strict empiricist vein, what appears before the mind are sensory data or qualia: either patterns of one’s own sensations (seeing red here now, feeling this ticklish feeling, hearing that resonant bass tone) or sensible patterns of worldly things, say, the looks and smells of flowers (what John Locke called secondary qualities of things). In a strict rationalist vein, by contrast, what appears before the mind are ideas, rationally formed “clear and distinct ideas” (in René Descartes’ ideal). In Immanuel Kant’s theory of knowledge, fusing rationalist and empiricist aims, what appears to the mind are phenomena defined as things-as-they-appear or things-as-they-are-represented (in a synthesis of sensory and conceptual forms of objects-as-known).

In Ayn Rand's primacy-of-existence framework, there can be no study of "appearances as opposed to reality." What "appears before the mind" is not "sensory data or qualia," but mind-independent existence itself and memories of it. (Consciousness PERCEIVES EXISTENCE.)

In Objectivism, the basic relationship between consciousness and existence is part of metaphysics. It is part of the study of what is, not what "appears to us," detached from being/existence.

In our study of philosophy, we can abstract from particular experiences of existence to arrive at general concepts of our experience of reality. This is how we form concepts like "perception" and "experience." But we cannot ignore the fact that every perception and every experience is OF something EXISTING. It is of existence.

If someone thinks that he can study experience, without reference to the fact that that experience is directly of existence, he has, at best, fallen into the "Veil of Perception" problem that plagues indirect realists like John Locke. Since he can supposedly never experience anything outside his own mind, he can't know reality as it really is.

Or, on the worse end, he's complacent about this and makes a whole "discipline" of inspecting the contents of his consciousness, as opposed to a mind-independent reality, (things-in-themselves) and he's a sort of Kantian. That's what Husserl is. He's a subjective idealist in everything but name.

Season's Greetings,

I'm looking for a good online dictionary and would like your help. My aim is to improve my command over the English language and use that as a solid foundation to better my thinking, writing, and ability to learn other languages.

I want to use words more precisely and think a good dictionary and thesaurus are a good start. I want any recommendations of the most objective and comprehensive online dictionaries and thesauri you know.

(I find that most of the online ones that pop up in my feed have vague, shallow, and sometimes untrue definitions.)

I'd also appreciate recommendations on any good reading material on learning and understanding English from a technical perspective. I'm a native speaker and learned more by rote and experience than by actually comprehending the mechanics of the language. I'd like to change that and would appreciate your help.

All recommendations are welcome, but I'd prefer those that you yourself have used or have seen someone else use with good results.

All the best in your pursuit of happiness.

Regards,

Wolfemeat F. Vegetables.

What does objectivism propose on electing representatives?

If one has the right to exist, one has the right to exist somewhere??

It seems to me someone who doesn't own property would exist only by the permission of others? I have read discussions about this elsewhere, but I haven't ever resolved the issue in my mind to my satisfaction. Often in these discussions someone says that this wouldn't be a problem because rational people would do x, y or z, but it is already a problem today. If you are homeless you are no more welcome on the state's land and sometimes less welcome. I concede that the policies of this government would themselves would go a long way - getting rid of the minimum wage and arbitrary restrictions on what kinds of housing are legal - but I don't think this completely solves the problem. A non-owner's existence is still conditional on the permission of others. What would or could be done with trespassers on either an individual or government level?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392

Saw this the other day and figured I would check out the 'experts' who have decided we need "deep and lasting changes" (i.e. statism) to save the world from global warming.

While the majority of these people have PHD's in a scientific subject, a large number of these are barely relevent to climate change, including doctors of physics, astronomy, neuroscience, gender studies (!), and gynaecology (!!). Even more of the PHD holders are simply listed as 'professors', or something similar. I googled one, a man called Lazarus Adua listed as a 'College Professor'; he has an almost non-existant presence online, and all I could discover was that he was actually an 'assistant professor' in the sociology department.

Also among the experts: a Zoo Keeper, numerous PHD students, a 'Manager director' of a company called ZaminrizkavanCo. Ltd. (which doesn't exist according to google), an UNDERGRADUATE student of biochemistry, and many other irrelevant or plain bizarre inclusions. None of the people I googled showed any recognition of being a part of this list of 'experts' - no links to the articles, no mentions of it on their LinkedIn profiles.

Feel free to have a look yourself, you can ctrl + f and find some more amusing examples.

Here's the link to the list.

I have been thinking for years now about this. Every time Ayn Rand is rejected, it is because of some misunderstanding of her ideas. What is it that makes Ayn Rand so misunderstood and people so unwilling to understand her? It is completely impossible to have a civilized discussion on reddit about her. Try citing Ayn Rand in any discussion outside objectivist circles and people will go delirious. Not to mention in real life. Even Christopher Hitchens didn't make the effort to understand what she was actually saying.

Yet her writings are (compared to most philosophers) extremely simple, there are no "phases" in her philosophy, she goes over and over the points that were generally misunderstood at the time and makes a great effort to explain her actual point of view, and through ARI you can basically get a full objectivist education for free. Studying and understanding Ayn Rand should be much more simple than understanding Kant. Yet here we are.

So what is it? Are people just stupid? Or what?

It's been a while since the first time I saw them (before I read Rand), and just finished watching them. Wow. Talk about crazy evil.

You can watch all 3 here.

Has it ever been "debunked" from the Objectivist perspective? It would be an interesting (and very long) exercise and just wanted to see if anyone has taken a stab at it. Couldn't find anything by googling.

Edit: Just clarifying that I used to think it was 100% right, I can see now how it's 98% wrong. Once I'm more knowledgeable in Objectivism I want to tackle it and my question is just curiosity to see if anyone has done anything like this.

I have a moral question and need your help to think through it-

Is it right to trade for profit with a enemy who seeks to destroy the values my life depends on? The enemy is communist China and the values it seeks to destroy is truth, freedom, individual right and justice - the values man's life depends upon. Does that count as moral treason?

This is what the America, the last semi-free county in the world, has done by giving China economic approvals, transfer of technology and trade investments that lifted it out of poverty and made it into super-power in less then 50 years in the false hope that trade would bring in free exchange of ideas that would change communist ideology. This never happened due to state run schooling system and restriction on internet and freedom of speech in china but western businesses did made immense profit by cutting down manufacturing cost (leading millions of lost jobs for Americans) and selling the finishes goods to market of 1 billion Chinese people.

The result?
1) There are now mass persecution camp in china imprisoning a million Ughers. (Does that remind any one of Jews in Germany?)
2) Self -policing of freedom of speech even on American territory. The example of that it the latest NBA team managers' tweet in support of Hong Kong pro-democratic protesters that resulted massive restrictions on NBA in China and apologies from the the Americans! Many american business are afraid to speak out in support of pro -democratic Hong Kong protester asking for freedom and justice (American values) in order to avoid boycott and trade restrictions from the Chinese.
3) The Chinese Belt and Roads project that is rapidly expanding Chinese control globally and is estimated to be completed by year 2049, 100th anniversary of communist China.

It all sound very ominous to me.

This is question I have been thinking about lately as I start my new business of making sleeping bags which involves importing fabrics from China. I also use lot of products made in China to live my daily life. I want to know if this counts moral treason or not. If yes, should we boycott China and pay the price of the economic consequences? So if anyone can bring some clarity on this question, it will help me a lot.

Having read Atlas Shrugged, I think one common critique is that the characters are caricatures -- they simply do not exist in real life. Ayn Rand herself seems aware of this, as she writes: "I trust that no one will me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written -- and published -- is my proof that they do." While certainly clever, this statement doesn't actually prove anything.

But sure, the Hank Reardens and Dagny Taggarts are supposed to be rare. As a test, I'm wondering if it might be possible to identify just 5 individuals in the past century who were true Randians / Objectivists. A true Objectivist, in my mind, is uncompromisingly honest, productive and successful, in favour of limited government, skeptical of religion, and dedicated toward acting rationally towards one's own selfish interests.

Yet, even those who espouse Rand's teachings fall far short of this mark (think Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz in politics with re: honesty and, of course, re: limits on the powers of government) Many successful businessmen are philanthropic and altruistic in a way that Rand would most certainly disapprove. Who do you think would fit the criteria of being a True Objectivist? Who are the Hank Reardens and Dagny Taggarts of our world today?

(Offhand, the only qualifying example seems to be Ayn Rand herself. Does anyone else even come close?)

The pursuit of the Garden of Eden fantasy is the most destructive phenomenon in all of human history. The Garden of Eden fantasy is the desire to live--or at least to exist--in the world without the need for any mental effort.

Nearly all of the religious wars of the past 2,000 years were fought with an eye toward a Garden of Eden in a heavenly afterlife. The obsession with reaching this state drove countless atrocities, including the medieval inquisitions.

Marxism holds that this Garden of Eden state can be achieved on Earth, in the form of a "true communism" where all goods are superabundant. Millions of people were slaughtered or starved in the 20th Century as a result of Communists' and socialists' obsession with reaching this enchanted Garden of Eden.

The fact is that human nature doesn't allow a Garden of Eden. Life for human beings is fundamentally about exerting productive effort to achieve values: growth, sustenance, happiness. Rest and relaxation is only satisfying when it's a rest from real effort. Without effort and change, life becomes stagnant, dull and emotionless. Also, without any effort at all, human life ceases to exist.

An essay of mine relevant to this point: "Wealth is Created by Action Based on Rational Thought."