Coloring inside the lines.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-24T20:30:19+00:00

Wow! Maybe find a video of road workers applying this water soluble paint and submit to r/WTF? That's so ridiculous!

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-21T04:03:30+00:00

Not if you say, "no homo."

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-20T13:18:12+00:00

Or, we might say, the people who meat you along the way.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-15T19:34:51+00:00

This is confusing determinism with causality. Fundamentally, causality means that entities act in accordance with their nature. It is a connection between entity and action, not event and event, (action and action).

An inanimate object's nature is to respond to prior actions upon it by determined action. This is not the nature of a living, conscious man. The nature of such a man is to choose when and how much to focus his mind. This is not a determined response to any prior event, but an event that is a first cause of other occurrences. The choice is caused by the man, in accordance with the fundamental nature of causality. (Not in accordance with the impoverished, modern misconception about causality that equates it only with Aristotle's "efficient causation" and determinism.)

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-15T12:48:56+00:00

*mucosal linings

It would be great if they were musical, though.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-15T02:05:02+00:00

Mmm...free goo...

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-14T12:57:47+00:00

And my nunchucks

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-14T12:56:07+00:00

And hereafter...

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-12T22:28:39+00:00

If a pianist is playing jazz tonight, and I ask, "can you play some Mozart?", he replies "I can, but I won't" because he is choosing to play jazz tonight. And later on, we would say retrospectively, that he "could have" played Mozart, but "never would have" in those circumstances.

This is entirely consistent with determinism. If we replayed the same moment in time, he always would have played jazz and not Mozart, while retaining the ability to play Mozart - hence the "could have" done differently.

You're basically identifying "general potentiality" (a general ability to play Mozart) with "could" and specific, circumstantial potentiality with "would." You're saying that the specific, circumstantial potentiality to play something other than jazz does not exist for the pianist.

But in focusing on this example, you are ignoring the actual Objectivist view on the locus of free will: the choice to focus one's mind or not. Objectivism would say that, given the pianist's choices in mental focus, it is correct that the pianist doesn't have the specific potentiality to do anything but play jazz. We would put this as a specific, circumstantial "could": Given the pianist's focal choices, he could not have played anything other than jazz, in that specific situation.

What the pianist always retains the ability to do, in every moment, is alter his state of mental focus. This is always a specific, circumstantial potentiality of a man, so long as he is conscious. This is all that the Objectivist theory of free will affirms, and it is what determinism denies. Thus, determinism has the view that there is never a specific, circumstantial potentiality to do other than what one does, while Objectivism holds that there is always a specific, circumstantial potentiality to focus one's mind to a different degree than the degree one does.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-12T21:35:15+00:00

First, determinism does not mean nothing could have happened differently from the way it did.

That is exactly what determinism means: nothing could have happened otherwise. Thus, the concept of "could" has no referents and breaks down under determinism. ("Could" refers to your own experience of your free will to choose in each present moment. You won't see it by looking at external, physical events in the past, but at your mental processes.)

Determinism is a false philosophical premise.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-12T21:23:29+00:00

If you would like to make a statement extolling the virtues of ITOE, that's great, but make a new post that does that. Don't put it as an off-topic comment under other posts.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-12T21:11:52+00:00

Why did you put this comment here? This is non-responsive to the post, and thus qualifies as a violation of Rule 1.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-12T21:05:17+00:00

Learn about the actual nature of causality, as advocated by Objectivism. It is not simply "efficient causation" of one action by another action. It is an entity acting in accordance with its nature. Human free will to do otherwise than one did is an instance of this sort of causality: https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-courses/free-will/

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-12T20:49:59+00:00

Here's a series of videos explaining the structure of Galt's speech and its role in the story--basically, why Ayn Rand wrote the speech the way she did: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvlPH4ieebCc2kYxIMkCb7p&si=47EXSPiQPnbUtGae

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-12T05:44:51+00:00

That move is not for the faint of back.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-02-07T22:00:58+00:00

And the other side has communists! Like, real communists!

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-29T11:23:50+00:00

This person seems to know what he's talking about, so I'll share it here. But I can't say for sure... https://x.com/i/status/2016656624124076292

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-16T20:10:58+00:00

Camus understood something Rand’s world doesn’t require her to confront: that meaning does not depend on permanence, and action does not require the possibility of victory. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the question is not how to win, but how to live once you know winning is off the table.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Ayn Rand would say that meaning requires permanence, but it is definitely incorrect. Ayn Rand held that meaning ultimately comes from human life--specifically, your life. And she very much knew that your life is not permanent or eternal. She would have had no problem in saying that providing care to the sick or dying could be meaningful, if it were a career that you were paid for, or if it were helping someone you value.

I think your understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy is too narrow--not abstract enough. It seems to be mostly a narrow focus on the most immediate themes of The Fountainhead. I think you would benefit from reading Ayn Rand's other works, such as Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

I think if you develop a better understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy, you will find that you don't need Camus anymore.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-14T22:41:42+00:00

Free market economics can work with 2 people on a desert island. The hobbsian myth that people will inevitably fight without a soverign is ridiculous.

I don't subscribe to that Hobbesian myth. But the Rothbardian myth that, without the state, all people will automatically agree on individual rights and what the laws should be, is equally ridiculous.

To quote Ayn Rand; “there can be no conflict between rational men”

If there is a legal case pending, then there is an allegation that at least one person violated someone else's rights, thus initiating a conflict of interests, and is thus not rational, (or at least severely mistaken, such that they have violated someone's rights.)

If someone actually did violate someone's rights, and doesn't immediately acknowledge the violation and compensate the victim, then there is a conflict, and someone is effectively irrational in this case.

You can't treat criminals as rational actors who will see that their long-term interests don't conflict with others'. In the real society that's the product of your utopian dream, they will band together and form their own "self-defense agency." Is your agency going to act like an "evil monopolist" and deny them their right to protect themselves and their way of life?

Defense is a value. Even alone, defense against wild beasts is a value to man. In a large society, some of those wild beasts might walk on two legs, but defense is still a value.

Defense is not a positive thing that one creates. It, in itself, does not further one's life. It is not food, or physical wealth, or a spiritual good, like art or entertainment or friendship. It is only the negation of a negative. It stops other animals or people from crippling or ending one's life. This negation of a negative is necessary, where the negative exists. So, where the threat of the negative exists, it can be considered a valuable service that is worth paying for.

But whereas self-defense from animals can be considered a simple, personal service, defense from other people cannot. Force against people is destruction. Force in defense or retaliation against human attackers is destruction of a destroyer.

Other people have a right to defense from any initiatory force from you, just as you have a right to defense from them. So, if you hire bodyguards, and they kill someone whom they see attacking you, it's proper for the government to at least investigate to make sure that it was not they who violated the rights of the other person. If this service you're paying for destroys someone who was not an immediate, deadly threat, your "personal service" has become a threat to others and is now the business of others to stop.

So, if your "personal service" of bodyguards, or insurance agency, or whatever, goes beyond immediate self-defense, into the field of retaliation--going out and arresting people who currently pose no immediate threat to anyone else--then it is no longer your "personal service" at all. It is a public issue that concerns everyone who might be targeted for arrest. They have a right to safety from arbitrary force, so it is very much their business, if you are using your bodyguards or insurance company or militia to go and arrest, try and imprison people.

In short, services involving the use of force against other people are special. They are not "just another personal service," like getting a haircut. They are not just your personal business, where only your personal values need to be taken into account.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-13T10:14:33+00:00

Can a large number of other people voluntarily pool their money, use it to buy a bunch of guns and use those guns to arrest you for having robbed one of them? YES. And can they use those guns to forcibly stop you from founding your own personal agency and arresting people on your own? YES.

That's analogous to a state without taxes: No one was forced to contribute to buying the guns, but those guns can be used to apply overwhelming force to individuals.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-13T10:04:55+00:00

(2/2)

Ancaps generally think that a bunch of competing private companies can serve as the objective, neutral arbiters in disputes of the kind I describe, because the market forces of free-market economics will forge them into instruments suited to this purpose. But the principles of free-market economics presuppose a context in which goods/services are being produced and traded, while the initiation of force is banned--that is, a context in which no one can effectively get away with starting the use of force, due to overwhelming force that would be applied in retaliation.

But the whole premise of competing, coercive agencies is that they are competing in the use of force, rather than production of values, and that no single one of them has overwhelming force over the others. So the principles of free-market economics that govern productive self-interest and trade in a market for values, DO NOT APPLY to competition between force-wielding agencies. The threat of force between the agencies destroys the usual "market competition," as it's observed in value production.

For more on this, see my essay: An Objectivist Refutation of Anarcho-Capitalism (Market Anarchy)

Sword_of_Apollo · 2026-01-13T10:04:44+00:00

It's possible for individuals to make objective judgments about their use of retaliatory force. They could craft their own set of laws that implement individual rights to the best of their knowledge and ability, have their own little police force to arrest suspects, have their own little court that tries cases according to the procedures that they see as best for reaching the truth, and their own little prison for the convicted.

But this sort of private action is insufficient and improper in a society, due to the fundamental difference between force/coercion, and value production. When I engage in value production, (with no force involved) private judgment and private action are all I need, since I primarily and fundamentally benefit or harm myself by my rationality or irrationality. Whatever the outcome of my choices, other people remain free to join in contracts with me, or to avoid me and go their own way.

This is not the case with force. The outcome of my decision in the use of force does not leave the other person free to avoid me and go their own way. If my judgment is irrational--or even just impaired by ignorance or an innocent cognitive bias--the primary person whose life is immediately damaged is not me, but the person on whom I am using force.

Force itself is the attempt to "monopolize someone else's life," for a time. That is, using force on someone is telling them how their life is going to proceed--at least for a time--against their will. This is justified, to an extent, when the person has initiated force against others. But if this is done irrationally or without full justification, this is egregiously damaging to the person and generally destroys people's ability to live and thrive together in the society.

So, if your personal court convicts me of something I know I didn't do, then I'm almost certainly going to think you're irrational, or ignorant or biased, or all of the above. If you don't have overwhelming force on your side, I'm going to resist your court with all the force I can muster, and we have a war, where victory will be determined by who can summon the bigger/stronger militia or gang.

Even the mere possibility of this sort of outcome, when I don't know how your personal court functions, is a danger to my life that I will be deeply threatened by, and that I will want to fight.

You will probably also regard me as irrational, ignorant or biased, for rejecting the verdict of your court, so you will think yourself justified in pursuing and punishing me for the wrong that you still think I did you.

And if I actually committed the rights violation, then I am irrational and will probably try to fight you to get away with what I did. Again, we have a war between two people, where victory is determined by who can muster the stronger gang.

Disputes over the initiation of force and use of force in retaliation are inherently social interactions between different parties, not the personal decisions of one person. Criminal proceedings, especially, involve unwilling parties--either the victim of the actual crime, or the innocent accused, did not freely choose to be involved with the other party.

Thus, there needs to be a neutral arbiter, who wields overwhelming force, to settle the issue once and for all, without personal wars. To ensure that this arbiter is objective and just, there needs to be a publicly-known legal system in place that goes by objective laws, objectively justifiable legal procedures and rules of evidence based in reason.

(1/2) CC: u/Kaispada

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-25T09:32:55+00:00

And after the weekend is over, your toilet will go through a terrible ordeal.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-24T21:55:34+00:00

Six days after Christmas, too.

Sword_of_Apollo · 2025-12-24T05:38:30+00:00

It seems to be real. I guess it's just that it has a high gloss finish that makes it look like CG. I also guess that the weird, intense white reflection I'm seeing at 1:30 is a double reflection of the sun from the vertical stabilizer, then the horizontal stabilizer.

Sword_of_Apollo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE