guitarstring87

How did the first thing that evolved, evolve the ability to evolve?

Just a quick note that might shed some light on his comments... He is a Liberal Socialist... better known as communist. His view that philosophy has failed is probably the result of his failed philosophy. Actually, it reminds me of a mark twain (yeah I know Samuel Clemons) quote: "It is easier to fool a man than to convince a man he has been fooled." Many people will kill an entire branch of science (in their minds) if it contradicts close held personal beliefs or an adopted philosophical principle.

Hey bud. I hate to see a topic with no replies. Is there any particular goal in isolating more "anti-concepts"? I think the easiest way to identify and "anti-concept" would be to take any concept that is morally positive and think of what the opposite immoral instance would be. I think what Rand was trying to point out was her stance that all human interaction SHOULD either occur by a moral positive or at minimum, be morally neutral. Anything that would cause a moral negative according to her frame work would be considered an "anti-concept". So the easiest way to identify the instance would be to understand the concept. Maybe you understood that already and were just trying to kick up some conversation. In which case... carry on.

That negates the entire principle of moral universality and the fundamentals of UPB. That is like saying "the government should have its own special category for the initiation of force".

Ok. That is a valid opinion... But do you have an argument to support it or were you just stating that you reject it? I am not a determinist. I am an objectivist. As such I am just exploring the world around me and the concepts regarding future and its relationship to reality. No need to go throwing labels on everything.

I listed to the podcast about animal rights. The thing Stephan said that struck me wrong is that animals arent covered under the NAP because they dont understand it.... Well... Babies. Babies cannot understand NAP. So what about them? Given a baby shouldn't be held morally responsible for not dialing 911 if its mother was choking to death... but the converse it true. Dont get me wrong... I am a hunter and a ravenous meat eater.... but i dont think that argument can jive.

Thank you for the response! Yeah the question is really abstract and kind of theoretical. The take away I was trying to convey was... Does current reality trump what could be in the future because current reality has already entered into existence and "what will" be has not? Basically the premise is that current reality has selected one (possibly the best one) option out of all the infinite options the future holds. So to give an example... I sit down in a chair. Before my ass hits the chair there is the possibility it will break, my coworker could kick it out from under me, or it could turn into a unicorn and fly away etc. But once my ass hits the chair and it doesn't break or scamper off or whatever... NOW only one reality exists and all the other POSSIBLE realities go away. So what IS (or current reality) trumps future possibility because what IS has actually come into existence. My thoughts on humanity and philosophy were just a back drop on how I started thinking about it and the implications of it on philosophy if it is correct.

Gosh dang brother... I thought MY long arse post was a commitment to read. Before I commit the time to sit down and read your post, can you offer me a quick bulletized summary of your talking points? I want to give you some feedback but I need some assurances

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT (BLUF): Does current reality trump what could be in the future because current reality has already entered into existence and what will happen in the future has not? The basic premise is that current reality has selected one (possibly the best one) option out of all the infinite options the future has in store. So to give a quick example... I sit down in a chair. Before my ass hits the chair there is the possibility it will break, my coworker could kick it out from under me, or it could turn into a unicorn and fly away etc. But once my ass hits the chair and it doesn't break or scamper off or whatever... NOW only one reality exists and all the other POSSIBLE realities go away. So what IS (or current reality) trumps future possibility because what IS has actually come into existence. See below for more detailed explanation. BLUF provided for economy of time and to improve response to view ratio. So to give you some background, the problem came up as I have been thinking on human history, specifically, when thinking about the origins of humanity, the natural world, and anarchism. Stephan has said (in summary) that anarchism has never been given a fair shake and that we have been ruled from the beginning... but isn't ALL of the natural world inherently anarchist? People have always had free will or as Ayn Rand pointed out in the virtue of selfishness we wouldn't have been able to feed ourselves. The rest animal kingdom operates on pure freedom, competition, and individual self interest as well... but out of the anarchy that is the natural world came humans, and humans created man-made (unnatural) systems of government and religion. Anarchism came first, because nature its self IS anarchy (which in my opinion is beautiful and I am not arguing against the principles of anarchism as used in philosophical context). Now to get into the meat of it... Does physical reality trump future possibility? To start I will submit that it does. For example I am typing a long convoluted post that probably no one ever will read and it is possible that ten minutes from now any number of things could happen to me, I could get struck by lightning or choke on some gum or whatever (by the end of this you will probably wish I would have)... but only one future of the competing futures wins, and that becomes what IS and that thing enters into physical reality which is tangible, and is subject to empirical analysis. So like Stephan has said one of his books (I can't remember if it was practical anarchy or every day anarchy) abstract theories must first not be self contradictory, and then must apply to the physical world (what IS) in order to be proven. So before something IS, the future has an infinite number of options of what COULD BE. So it could be said that what IS trumps what COULD BE because out of all the possible combinations of what COULD BE, IS... IS. It won. it actually came to fruition in physical reality. So to tie the previous two paragraphs together, the natural world IS. Out of all the infinite combinations, it is the best system of life (that we know of) that the universe could develop. Many anarchists use the argument that the natural world operates on the same fundamental principles as their philosophical model to justify the “rightness” of anarchism... But this is also the problem.... because the natural world right now, and throughout most of human history, is pretty messed up. So philosophy came about to argue for the way the world SHOULD BE in the future. This is a problem for philosophy because WHAT IS CURRENTLY is the natural extension of what has been. So to rephrase that... We are living in a time where communism rules the world and individual liberty is an endangered species AND we are currently the living result of what the natural world has developed out of disorder through improvements made by evolution. Is this then not our improved natural state? Also, if it stands that WHAT IS trumps any logical model that supposes reality should be any different than it IS, then isn't philosophy shoved off into the same hypothetical, or rather, nonexistent future where I choke on a piece of gum? I guess this kind of gets into some quantum "Schrodinger's cat" type stuff... But that was my best effort to try and put into words my dilemma and explain my meager understanding of the future. Please forgive the length... it is just a fairly complex thought that needs some context. Also please bear in mind I am on your side and am not arguing against any of the principles Stephan puts forward and I am a HUGE fan of the show and philosophy. I am just trying to work through this logically and have ran into a hiccup. Thanks and I look forward to your responses!