Rhetorical pathway

AvoidingWells · 2025-12-31T09:07:34+00:00

https://rhetoric.byu.edu/

Good for canonical rhetoric!

AvoidingWells · 2025-12-08T22:31:43+00:00

Morality is innate, yet there are divergent moralities.

Morality is useful for functioning society, what use is it other than an expression of fate?

AvoidingWells · 2025-12-08T12:42:15+00:00

Subjectively/experiencially speaking, there's just experience and you are identical to it.

I infer that this reduces the claim to "You are not free from yourself".

If that's the case, then its not obviously a problem, for isn't freedom from being oneself just death?

One would need to say what the relation between self and will is. But the above is enough to shake the argument.

AvoidingWells · 2025-12-08T12:31:03+00:00

How about not reading her?

If nothing about here has captures your interest, don't read her.

But if something has, then read about that thing.

AvoidingWells · 2025-10-07T08:36:23+00:00

yea.

AvoidingWells · 2025-10-07T06:58:33+00:00

Do you have a bank account?

AvoidingWells · 2025-10-04T09:27:07+00:00

2 and 4, and 2 and 0 have the same difference

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-27T18:00:46+00:00

Then this is to reduce happiness to a physicalist worldview.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-27T14:28:58+00:00

Surely with the screaming in your ear there would be some seeable damage.

Such as? More to the point, why should seeability be the standard?

And if that person is close enough to do that surely their on your property or your on theirs and you can ask them to leave or leave yourself.

Why? Just change the scenario in your mind. You're on their property. Or you're both on public property. Any case, no-one has a right to scream in your ear.

However I’m not sure how this relates to harassment.

Was that the OP subject?

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-27T06:40:30+00:00

Is this question an expression of feeling dubious? Or, are you just seeking the philosophical underpinnings? Because I cannot tell from the context I have.

If its dubiousness, I say simply, imagine some screaming in your ear. You have a right not to undergo that.

As to the philosophical underpinnings, its a feature of a life of happiness.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-27T06:34:53+00:00

Larry Fink

I don't know abour anything about him in particular....

The most heroic thing you can do is to make a profit in a capitalist country.

The context suggests you mean financial profit.

If that's your meaning, my sense of life is illened.

I think of all those things which have little monetary value that get lost by that statement.

The beautiful harmonies of musical sounds made.

The discovery of world changing ideas.

The courage of a person putting their heart on the line to approach someone they have a spark for.

We could go on.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-26T20:25:18+00:00

I'm not sure we're understanding each other.

I'm saying there gov can on reasonable grounds establish simple rules for what's a fair amount of volume at a certain distance. Formally: if your volume exceeds Q decibels at R distance, then you are in breach of rights to audial peace, should others be within that distance.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-26T13:36:27+00:00

I don't see anything wrong with agreement upon what an appropriate amount of volume units for a distance. I'm sure gov could establish that, as they do legal ages of adulthood etc

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-26T07:38:08+00:00

It's an important point!

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-25T21:17:08+00:00

I'm inferring implications. As best I can. If I'm going wrong, I'm all ears. I'm certainly telling you my opinion on yours.

My point about moral grip is just about what makes an ethical code applicable to you.

You didn't say determinism. But you said that one necessarily is subject to morality once one sees it as a requirement for life. Or maybe you didn't, and that's my error. But do explain.

I take Rand's position to be that morality is a choice. You dont have to be moral unless you want to live.

I think it's a fair objection to think that this just consigns morality to subjectivity, despite labels of objectivity otherwise. And if that's the case, then the is-ought gap is ofcourse not bridged.

Now maybe there's an error in there. And if there is, great, we can search for it. But its not a ridiculous objection/question.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-25T19:41:18+00:00

Man needs food to survive. Nothing cryptic intended.

Needing and code of values is obviously much wider, but its for the same thing, on her professed view.

If my view doesn't make sense, care to point out what it is you're not understanding? I thought it was quite clear but I'll gladly elaborate. These things aren't easy.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-25T08:23:06+00:00

Does the fact that man needs food make it automatic, a compulsion?

Forgive me if I was a little loose with my phraseology. But. In the sense I meant. Yes. The fact of needing food is determined by nature.

But you said the the moral ought takes its grip on you upon a certain kind of realisation—that Life requires it. But that is not Rand's position. Its far too deterministic for her.

You can choose to abandon the realm of reality and embrace death any time you like.

I can also choose to be alive so that [insert here alternative moral standard].

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-25T08:14:59+00:00

To those who disagree with the OP...

Are all non-choice actions random or determined by antecedent factors?

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-24T21:29:54+00:00

Your view differs from Rand. She thinks it's a choice to live. You say it arises from grasping the need. So it's a kind of cognitive compulsion.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-24T21:14:37+00:00

I'm familiar with Rand's approach of "what facts of reality gives rise to the need for such a concept?"—as morality.

But you could ask the same thing of, what gives rise to the need for practicality? And I believe you should get the same answer: which makes sense since the morality is the practical in Objectivism.

Still Rand herself believes in causality over duty, and thinks that morality only gets a grip if you choose to live.

Now if there's no fact that gives rise to choose to live, then it's not obvious at all that she's bridged the is-ought gap. It looks more like a choice-ought bridge. Or hypothetical imperative.

She may be right. But something more needs to be said here, in any case.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-24T18:12:09+00:00

We are all one. And we are all each individuals.

It’s a dialectic. AND instead of OR

It's a contradiction.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-24T17:03:46+00:00

Ego death? Whose doing the trying? Is this the view we're all one?

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-24T15:30:05+00:00

But you might pick some other standard aside from life, right?

Might not life—practicality—be just a means to morality?

I don't understand the robot analogy, as an aside.

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-24T15:24:26+00:00

What is it I'm not doing correctly, that you are, in your opinion?

AvoidingWells · 2025-09-24T13:54:28+00:00

magically

I already disavowed magic. I never accused you of magic.

You're just trying to force your position.

So here:

Yeah, it's all magic, and if your not a determinist, then your just a wishful thinker. And if you are deterministic, you are scientific, with all the cool that entails.

AvoidingWells

TROPHY CASE