Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "" video.

@Cheekyguylife you're the kind of guy to say to someone describing the boiling point of water "erm, actually its 70 degrees celsius on top of everest!"
21
The best thing to do when undiscerning crowds start calling TIK crazy is to presume TIK is doing something based
6
@ THEY HAD HORSES, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
4
cry about it
3
@ anti-corporation free market guys are not capitalists
3
Galambos was pretty crazy, but thankfully he banned anyone who ever heard his theories from propagating his infohazards
2
Well thanks for vindicating TIK, since he addressed this in the video
2
@audrius337 ah yes, because either everything is matter or everything is spirits. I would heed TIKs advice to read Peikoff.
2
@ she wouldn't make religion illegal, for force is antimind and therefore anti-reality!
1
Brain rot is Kantian
1
Her point being is whole concept of "ought" is based on and implied by the fact of life. I would absolutely dive into the other parts of her philosophy too like epistemology.
1
@ Idk man, seems like considering "is-ought" a fallacy is a bit unreasonable then. Well, how could I know about values if I don't know how to how? Seems epistemology is the more fundamental point here.
1
@ArtisticLayman If you can't know about the why and the value, then there isn't much point in discussing them!
1
@ArtisticLayman Of course in reality everything is inseparable, but that doesn't mean we cannot abstract particular aspects of reality to see which is more fundamental or not.
1
@ArtisticLayman Because you can't form theories about values and purpose without knowing how to form valid theories. For instance, the reason why Hume began calling is-ought a fallacy in the first place is because it goes against his epistemology, that the only things that are knowable whatsoever are sensations or mental images of sensations. Hume applies this to various concepts, such as the external world, the mind and causality, before applying it to oughts. SInce an "ought" is not something you can directly sense, then you cannot derive oughts from the senses; and since the only things that are knowable are sensations, you cannot derives oughts from knowledge. Such is how the theory of knowledge affects the theory of values.
1
@ArtisticLayman Obviously, a valid theory has some correctness to it, but values are correctness with relation to some action. You need a theory of correctness as such to answer the narrower question of what a correct action is. Well, obviously it is fallacious if the only "ises" that exist are sensations or images thereof, but I don't see why we should restrict ourselves in such a manner.
1
@ArtisticLayman Well, objectivism treats senses as just being; they are metaphysically given, and beyond any human evaluation. When we move to more abstract points, then that involves human choice and that is open to evaluation, but not sensation itself.
1
@ArtisticLayman Indeed; hammers also aren't in nature, and we need to put in effort to get both.
1
@ArtisticLayman You can't, yet they still exist, otherwise you wouldn't be able to communicate with me now :p
1
@ArtisticLayman Obviously, abstractions are something, but you don't need to be mystical to have abstractions, just be able to mentally integrate units. This is why we can know causal connections, the external world, and ourselves, etc.
1
@ArtisticLayman Objectivism provides the only theory of concepts based in reality, that doesn't require any deletion or substraction from the units to be integrated.
1
@ArtisticLayman this is concept formation theory, we aren't talking about 'oughts' yet
1
@ArtisticLayman I wouldn't really say one "ought" to be an empiricist, since ought mainly exists in the context of action. I would probably say that it is correct to be an empircist. Now, when we come to ethics, then we are going to have to find some factual basis for values. However, objectivism is based on existence and integration, rather than ethics.
1
@ArtisticLayman If I can't find ethics in reality, then what else can I not find in reality? Can I not get concepts from there either? Any generalisation?
1
@ArtisticLayman I really don't see why it is so impossible
1
@ArtisticLayman I really don't think this mundane-transcendant distinction is useful
1
@ArtisticLayman So it's useful because it shows how you can't get oughts from ises, because you can't get oughts from ises because it's useful? Whole thing seems to be petitio to me
1
@ArtisticLayman I mean personally I would try to see the attributes of an ought and see whether there is anything of that nature in reality, but oh well
1
@ArtisticLayman Well, values require an entity which is capable of preserving or loosing something; there has to be an alternative of some sort. Organisms are entities, and they are capable of preserving or loosing something, that being their life. Values are therefore caused by life.
1
@ArtisticLayman Rather, what I am describing is the characteristics of values, and their referents in reality, that being life.
1
@ArtisticLayman Well, if I can find the basis for values, oughts, in facts, ises, it doesn't seem that fallacious.
1
@ArtisticLayman Why aren't they?
1
@ArtisticLayman Because I am sure the sole mischief that advocates of the is-ought "fallacy" wish to overcome is people thinking that they ought pursue values, not that they ought to have certain values! I am aware I did not define values, and rather gave some inherent characteristics of values, but that was all I needed to do for my purposes.
1
@ArtisticLayman I don't see the rational basis for it
1
@ArtisticLayman Why not? It just seems an obligation is a kind of description.
1
@ArtisticLayman Well, obviously they aren't just an impression or an image thereof, but many other kinds of descriptions aren't just impressions or images thereof so I don't see how hell is being raised by admitting another kind.
1
@ Is a duty not a sort of information?
1
he cited him in his Hitler's Socialism video
1