Karl

Reality is not distorted, we perceive it directly (and before we end up in what about hallucinations/dreams/drug induced distortions then let's accept that we have and know the definitions of those concepts-in other words when we say 'what about dreams' ? We already have differentiated dreaming from being awake.) I cover the basics here: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/40966-objectivism-101/ I have yet to finish the work, but it is finished sufficiently to answer your specific question in a logical sequence. It begins by defining philosophy and the axiomatic nature of existence, consciousness and identity. It's as simple as I can make it and you can ask questions on the thread-some may have already been asked by others. I feel it important to add that this isn't about accepting an ideology called 'objectivism', if you did that, then, you would simply be adding to the clutter. I should say that I took Peikoffs course in logic prior to grasping the fundamentals of the objectivist argument. I then studied the history of philosophy in order that I could see what other philosophers had written. I'm nearing 60, so not a youngster, but my mind is more active than my body was as a child-which is definitely a good thing ;-)

You are missing a real treat. You can get Brie in France that has tremendous strength and when it gets really runny, oh man, the flavours and smell are amazing. Served on just baked croissants on a summers day with a bottle of chilled Sancerre .......

I bought a brick one with Welsh slate on the roof.

Sometimes Brie can be like that when it gets a bit ripe. It manifests down the side of the cheeseboard and dribbles off a Jacobs.

I felt like that when I was caving. It's weird really because I don't like the dark generally, but in a cave there is a feeling of serenity. I would often switch off my head lamp and just lie on my back listening to the cave sounds. There is a particular set of passages called the minarets in the ease gill system which are diamond shaped with silt floors. The acoustics are so dead compared to the echoes in most parts of a system and its more it's like a hushed crypt. So peaceful.

The pro-EU camp argues that leaving the EU will cost Britain dearly in terms of economic prosperity, financial stability, and domestic security. In fact, people are being told that exiting the EU will bring dismal times to Britain. The anti-EU camp argues that leaving the EU will be good, as it gives Britain freedom to determine its own fate: to decide about taxes, fishing, immigration, and other issues which are of the utmost importance for the economic and political well-being of the British people. From insights into why an exit from the European Union will be good for Britain, we can consult the work Ludwig von Mises. Essentially, a Brexit will remove another layer of government intervention from the lives of Brits, and in his A Critique of Interventionism, originally published in 1929, Mises argues that whenever the state meddles with the free market, it reduces the standard of living that had prevailed prior to any state intervention (ceteris paribus). The Evolution of the EU The EU is a case par excellence illustrating the failure of interventionism. To be fair, in its early stages there was something like the European idea of creating a truly free trade area: a free cross border flow of goods, labor, and capital. This was basically achieved in the early 1990s. It brought indeed positive effects for growth and employment in basically all European nation states. But the EU’s politics didn’t stop there. It wanted to become more powerful. In all those years the EU has been working hard to end the system of European federalism in the sense of productively competing sovereign nation states, trying to replace it by a centralized political, economic, and financial superpower in Brussels. However, the EU’s interventionist approach has brought about a rather dismal situation as far as economic and financial matters in many EU countries are concerned: mass unemployment, public finances in disarray, and miserable growth perspectives. The height of the EU’s fateful megalomania was the introduction of the euro in 1999: the currencies of nation states entering the European Monetary Union were replaced by a single currency, the euro, issued by a single central bank, the European Central Bank (ECB). Right from the start, the ECB let loose a colossal debt binge, which has left broken states, banks, and consumers. To cover up the mess, the ECB has lowered rates to below zero and keeps printing money — the only options left for preventing the euro from coming crashing down. The ECB’s policy doesn't do any good apart from covering up the problems for a while. The truth is that it causes a shortage of savings and investment, overconsumption and malinvestments on the grandest scale, thereby destroying the very pillars on which prosperity rests. Despite the dysfunctionality of its centralization path, however, the EU is determined to pursue its current course even more radically: Its advocates a push for “Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union,” basically through “closer coordination of economic policies.” Small States Are Better That said, Mises’s interventionism critique may suffice to debunk the EU approach as an economic failure through and through. However, there is another argument that deserves attention in this context. It was formulated by Leopold Kohr. In The Breakdown of Nations (1957), Kohr points out that small states are more productive and peaceful than large states, and that virtually all political and social problems could be greatly reduced by dissolving large states into a great many small states. Viewed against Mises’s interventionism critique, and Kohr’s insight that a super-state is the root cause of all economic and political evil, there are strong reasons for Britain to exit the EU, to steer free from an ideology that will not, that cannot, turn out to be successful. Two Reasons Why Brexit Is Better In fact, a Brexit would be good for at least two reasons. First, it might help to put an end to a dead-end policy as more member states may decide to opt out, thereby raisingthe perspective of the EU being returned to a free-market productive competition system among regions. Second, and more fundamental, the mere debate about Brexit highlights the fact that the state (as we know it today: namely as a territorial monopolist of coercion with ultimate decision-making power) is basically always the problem, not the solution. Today's nation state runs counter to individual freedom. It cannot be reconciled with the idea of individual freedom. The situation becomes much worse once nation states start teaming up, trying to unify their power into a single state-structure — like the EU. In sum, there shouldn’t be any fear of a Brexit on the part of those seeking freedom and economic prosperity. On the contrary. A Brexit may hold the key to make Europe abandon a doomed course, bringing it to its senses and back onto the road of freedom and prosperity. Thought this might be of help: Mises has effectively predicted every economic crash and explained why crashes happen.

About the size of it.

Thats just sophism/skepticism. You are saying that you can't know reality directly. That nothing can be proven because no reality can be known. Then you make an argument based on nothing at all. You can be safely ignored. You are saying because I have eyes I am blind, because I have ears I am deaf, because I have a mind I am ignorant. Do you understand that proof relies on known reality, if you deny that you can know reality then you can never have proof of any kind of argument. This is the fallacy of the stolen concept. That you rely on truth to deny there being any truth. That you rely on reason to deny reason. That you rely on logic to deny logic. You say there are no absolutes whilst uttering an absolute. Existence is absolute, reality is absolute, human life is absolute, a grain of sand is absolute, being hungry is an absolute.

Just logical not optimistic. Just look at the cracks in any piece of concrete paving. Was that concrete paving 'meant' for the grass/weeds/ants/moss that grows there ? No. It was just a place where these things could grow and so they did. Dogs or crocodiles didn't appear in these cracks, only what could survive and thrive did so. The Earth is like a crack in the concrete.

I have a great book on this called mobocracy. Sometimes these polls are subtly influencing the results by the questions asked and the conclusions in the poll narrative. It's difficult to catch. In the book I had to read over a proce of propaganda several times before I saw how clever it was. Democracy runs on polls and is influenced by them. Kate Hoey was asked today about the increase in remain voters, she was very relaxed and told the two reporters being interviewed that they were living in a bubble and should get out more. I have heard several times that Labour IN campaigners have been shocked by the responses on the doorstep-they said it is exactly like the election where the polls were saying one thing and the canpaigners were finding something different. I notice that Peter Hitchens believes the vote will be to leave and he isn't known for his optimism.

At least it's a different take on the mud slinging. I had to wind my neck in like a tortoise to even consider some of the conclusions. For me it is far more passionate, like a war.

I guess the bookmakers want to get all the big money on the wrong side of the equation, so, good odds are attractive to those who feel confident of a large win. If the leave side win, then you want fewer bets to pay out bigger money. Indeed this might well mean a load of fools who will soon be parted from their cash. Addendum: oh I see now. The light bulb glows faintly. The market can use bets to skew the odds and influence the markets. The stock market increase and the pound were the result of one single 25K bet. This meant the markets could shift some stocks and money with minimal leverage. A tiny 25K made them millions. The bookmakers odds are very skewed by market bets compared to the polls, so they should not be regarded as an accurate forecast either.

They have already United. Philosophy is the mulch and the other sciences are the plants which grow there. There are no limits to expansion of consciousness, but we really must stop consuming all those cognitive trans fats and corn syrups.

I can confirm that 'this planet' happened to support life and humanity was part of the diverse evolution of that life.

I think I have found what DB needs to help make the decision. This is the liberal case for leave in which shouty 'immigrant' and 'we are all doomed' economics gives way to the liberal case for why exit is the best option. Complete with graphs. http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave/ Sent from my iPad

Remain campaign director Will Straw sent the above email to the Stronger In mailing list yesterday. The thinking behind it is revealed in a recording of a conference call, obtained by Guido, which took place yesterday afternoon. Straw told Remain campaigners that voters had been “pulled up short” by the murder of Jo Cox, and that Stronger In should now attack the Leave side for creating “division and resentment”. Straw says they should respond to Cox’s death – “the new context that we’re in” – by claiming only they represent “a decent, tolerant” Britain. “We need to recognise that people have been pulled up short by Jo Cox’s death and it is now time to make a very positive case for why we want to be in the European Union… to call out the other side for what they have done to stir division and resentment in the UK. That is something we must all do… This is what we think is the closing argument of the campaign, reflecting all the arguments that we have been setting out for many months but also the new context that we’re in. What we want to say is people should vote Remain on Thursday for more jobs, lower prices, workers’ rights, stronger public services and a decent, tolerant United Kingdom.” Fair to say campaigning is well and truly back under way… Courtesy of Guido Fawkes. Proof- if it was needed-that the Remain side will happily use Joe Cox's death to further their political aims. They have no scruples what so ever. Disgusting scumbags.

Concepts have to be rooted in reality. Whatever the philosophy it cannot simply float. However, this is where the objections begin. Many want to disprove the primacy of existence. They prefer to have a philosophy in which consciousness has primacy and therefore identity is redundant. Then they bump into a lamp post.

I understood which is why I had to end the conversation last time. 'Living in the now' is a philosophy, but is that really how you think ? Why is it necessary to argue with me if things are really only in the moment for you ? A conflict occurs between what you think you can do and what you actually do. Every persons philosophy evolves, but most treat what they learn like a cow munching through a field of grass. Somehow it all just happens and it seems automatic, but it isn't. Every conception has to be stored and integrated actively. Most people don't even realise what they are consuming, they give it very little thought and shove it into a big ball of gunk. The problem is that if you never think about what you are consuming, then the result his a hotch potch which doesn't work too well, this leads to self doubt. You realised this when you said that you weren't living in the moment and that's why you reacted to me. I had the same experience several years ago when I was meditating and doing practices. I kept noticing that I felt a certain way and believed if I just accepted myself feeling this certain way then I could stop fighting. It worked for a while and everything was calm, but then the doubts resurfaced and I realised that living in the now was a fools errand. Enjoy the moment of course, but to live like an animal is impossible for a man, we have to think even if we wish sometimes that it was unnecessary. It's possible to evade for a time, but reality comes knocking.

Of course. 1 house every 4 minutes. That doesn't show the full picture. Imagine the number of languages, customs and cultures. Think how every school, doctor, ward, company, police, driving school will require people to reach multiple languages. Imagine neighbourhoods with people unable to talk to one another, without any common culture.

Turkish entrance is already happening. The EU is being blackmailed and those that countenance blackmail eventually succumb to all the blackmailers demands. It is the policy of the U.K. Government that Turkey enters the EU and we are spending a load of public money to ensure it happens. No one imagined Merkel would open Europe to millions of immigrants, but she did. The Balkan countries were appropriated in the EU despite not conforming to EU requirements-this is how Greece got in, as they reduced the entry requirements. All the economic principles of the EU have been bypassed-there were rules to stop states getting too deep into debt, there were rules to prevent money printing, but they have all been ditched to save the project. If Turkey is required to save the project, then Turkey will get in and all the rules will be dropped to facilitate it. Cameron keeps waving the veto that we have over Turkey, but a Britain in the EU will comply with the EU, Cameron has shown this to be true in his failed negotiations. Just like he tells us there will be no EU army, when the creation of one is in progress. Cameron means to 'dock' us in Europe because that's what the corporates want.

Precisely. This is one reason why I find it difficult to use immigration as the key reason to leave. However, if we do leave, then the Government has no excuses left for not controlling immigration as they do now. It may already be too late for our western values. This goes back to philosophy. Our attitudes are pragmatic, it's whatever works and sod the consequences. Peter Hitchens believes that Sharia law will eventually dominate, the numbers and family structure make this inevitable. We will be bred out of existence.

It's obvious to the man in the street that our immigration policy hasn't made anyone richer except the fat cats at the top. Our public services are over loaded and creaking from lack of finance, we have a severe housing shortage, debt is extremely high in both private sector and public sector, the defecit is increasing once again and the public debt on which we pay interest is ballooning, productivity is lower than it was in 2001 and wages haven't recovered since 2007. Even if we take out the Muslim element of immigration equation we are left with lots of extra people and no obvious advantage from having them. The inflow of immigrants each year equals a city the size of Bristol or Oxford. Half of these immigrants are from the EU and we have no way to reduce that flow. Meanwhile the government is doing nothing to control overall immigration regardless of the EU. We should ask what exactly does that mean ? Why was Cameron unable to stick to his election promise of curbing the numbers ? I think it's fairly simple. Just as in 1985 when the round table of big business decided that they had to put forward a plan to save the EU from economic collapse, so today, there is an East vs West corporate strategy in the wake of the rise of China and the BRICS. To keep Europe competitive the fundamental answer was to reduce labour costs. The way to reduce labour costs is to increase the pool of willing labour. This works for big corporates, but it doesn't facilitate innovation, it creates a serf economy which is less productive, but suits big business and big government. This was the situation in India when all high paying jobs that went to high achieving graduates were Government jobs. The corporations are focused on their own businesses and the state on its tax income, they are treating countries like factories, just as once we had a feudal system of total stagnation which served a few at a cost to the many. As long as we can fit more people into Britain, then more will be permitted to settle here and the indigenous population will have to accept it. Muslims make up a huge potential workforce and represent the kinds of people for whom hard work, low pay and few public services are acceptable. The culture of the country doesn't matter, it's just a factory floor and the more cheap labour the better.

Philosophy is always changing. The point is not that it changes, but that you are consciously aware of what your current philosophy is and that it is coherent. A philosophy is your total world view. It informs every thought and action. As I said previously: where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ? The Ancient Greek philosophers causes the age of reason when science overcame mysticism, now we are going backwards. We have stopped reasoning logically and are sinking back into mysticism. This is the result of philosophers such as Kant, Decartes and Hegel. We are in an age of pragmatism and scientism. In such an age one may as well trust in tea leaves and fairy dust to guide ones decisions. Philosophy has led us here and only philosophy can lead us out.

Psychology is still at a very early stage of a science. Philosophy should be understood as the science which underpins all sciences. Think of it as a substrate in which the other sciences grow. You wouldn't use philosophy to cure a mental illness, build a bridge, or make a computer; yet without philosophy none of those things would be possible.

So do I, but must fight all the way to the wire. When I've done all I can I'm going to turn off the TV for a month.