The following is the precursor that lead to this thread about Libertarianism and Socialism and any other  form of government others wish to add to the discussion. 

Views: 5676

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The other idiots on the street go to jail when they do something stupid with their gun. I cannot impinge on their rights because they may do something hurtful with it. A person doesn't need a weapon to kill many people, yet we don't hold them in jail for their potential to do so. We can only hold people responsible for their actions.

"That is a very poorly chosen word in this context. Sometimes you really do show signs of NPD"

-Narcissistic traits, not signs of the disorder. We went over this simple concept earlier. I specifically chose that word 'power' for its objective meaning. It really is the non-essential aspects and connotations that you and the rest of mainstream lunacy give to power that makes you think that way. Power is good. Exploitation is bad, real exploitation, not that non-essential aspect you give to capitalism. Talking realistically about the power a job affords me is not even related to the narcissistic traits I do have.

Narcissistic traits, not signs of the disorder

Agreed I am just saying that, I would not use the word power in a rebuttal to a suggestion that you lack empathy.

that you and the rest of mainstream lunacy

Believe me, I am far from main stream, As a person with Bipolar I have to spend a lot of time in self reflection, If I don't do this I am not able to maintain stability. Due to this I have a reasonable Idea of how to spot extreme thinking that falls outside the norm. This is something I think All people should do, do not assume sanity is a given.

Give me more credit than thinking that you, in general, are mainstream. Your explicit use of power was mainstreamic (copywrite 12/2011).

mainstreamic (copywrite 12/2011) ...lol

The only objective meaning the word power has is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. The way you are using the word is definitely not objective. The perception of power over others and/or your destiny and/or the universe is a purely subjective term. It is not objective. It is subjective.

Power is good.

So. I take it you don't agree with the aphorism about power corrupting.

You are conflating objective and scientific. You have only the scientific definition of power. Power also means ability. Like work can also means the type of job one does as well as force times distance.

And you would be correct that I do not think corruption is an essential characteristic of power.

The measure of your ability is a subjective measurement and not objective. The measure of your power over other people is subjective and not objective. You are simply doing what Ayn Rand was famous and applying the word objective to things it didn't apply to.

The word work as applied to job type isn't objective either because it does not have the same applicability across the board. I am a doctor is a subjective analysis of what you do because the meaning of Doctor is variable across fields and specialties.

The only definition for power which does not vary according to person, and is repeatable in every situation, is the scientific one. Science is the only way to define something objectively since it relies on strict analysis of natural phenomena. The formula for power applies the same whether a person uses it in Boston, Shanghai, the ISS, the moon, Mars, Jupiter, the surface of the sun, Proxima Centauri, the Andromeda galaxy or the event horizon of a black hole. This is the true meaning of something being objective.

Lets analyze your meaning of the word power as an ability. Lets say you are a runner. That application means something to you. However, to different people it may mean something completely different. If you say to an Olympic sprinter that you are a runner they may not agree because according to their standards you are not. The same can be said for a marathoner. The "fact" that you are a runner is applicable to a very narrow set of circumstances which vary. Your statement that you are a runner is subjective.

 

Finally, your idea that power does not corrupt is not supported by history. I think your manipulation of the word power allows you to say so because your meaning of power is subjective.

We can and must have objective meanings of concepts, which are objective in and of themselves as the process of concept formation entails defining something by its essential characteristics that exist regardless of the subjective perception of it. A chair, which has no mathematical description, is a chair no matter in what way you look at it or language you refer to it in. Phonemes can have multiple meanings. The concept of power also means and ability. I have the power to dance. I have enough relative control over my environment to sing. Measurements, by the way, cannot be subjective. And qualitative nature of power is such that, the more you have, the more you can do. The implications of your subjectivist view is that words have no meaning. This is not true. Many people have been powerful and not corrupt. Corruption is not an essential aspect of power.

Words don't have meaning on the objective scale. They are symbols which relate to ideas, but they aren't objective. They are subjective. They are subjective depending on condition, on circumstance, on culture, on language...

Take the word power which we are discussing. The English word "power" has 20 different meanings according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/power

This makes the word very, very subjective. Science and mathematics are the only reliable way to determine meaning.

Your statement than many people have been powerful and not corrupt bears investigation.  I would be interested in seeing who you think qualifies as powerful and not corrupt so we can compare.

"Words don't have meaning on the objective scale."

-Abject nonsense. The concept of ability is objective, whether we refer to it with the phoneme power or ability. It has necessary characteristics that are real and reducible to perceptual evidence in any language. We remove the unique subjective perceptions when we form concepts, that's what makes them concepts. Your willingness and attempt to defeat the process of definition by essentials cannot invalidate that XBox is an electric gaming system, no matter how you cut it. It is not a relative or subjective concept. It has necessary essentials. It is definitely some things and not others. Words, the phonemes for concepts, having objective meanings is necessary for communication about this one objective reality we all inhabit. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. This is not a subjective definition, in fact, if it is a definition, it is not subjective. Objectification of our perceptions is necessary for language development. Cortically, this is exactly what is going on. Our cortex examines multiple versions of patterns of perceptual evidence about something that actually exists in reality and after we remove or omit the subjective arbitrary characteristics, such as color and material, in the case of a chair, and retain the objective characteristics, such as shape and purpose, we can hold this in place, attach a phoneme and communicate to others or hold in our awareness for comparing and contrasting other things like and dislike it. This is how we make knowledge. This is very consistent with new successful models of artifical intelligence, most notably Jeff Hawkins' Hierarchical Temporal Memory. Concept formation, which is necessary for rational thought and communication is the objectification of our perceptions. And someone who has the ability to walk, also, objectively has the power to walk.

Me. I have power and I am not corrupt. Birds have the power of flight and they are not corrupt. Rocks have no power and are not corrupt. Some people with any level of power what-so-ever may be corrupt. Financial success and entrepreneurship are not causally related to corruption and should not be blamed for it.

Do you realize that you have just used the word power in 6-7 different ways with different meanings while simultaneously insisting that it has objective meaning. You are even mixing together the different meanings of the word power in an attempt to prove that power does not corrupt. You are using the different meanings and attempting to make them look like they are equivalent. A word that has twenty different meanings according to concept, situation and area. How can a word that can mean this many different things be objective.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service