Protest Ends in 4 Student Arrests

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
141

<p>To my dear "Myself"-</p>

<p>"It sounds as though you copied and pasted a bunch of Communist rhetoric from some website."
-the only reason any of my "assertions" would be found in communist rhetoric is because they are practical and factual criticisms of capitalism. thus, your assertion is completely irrelevant. perhaps, you should stick to the subject of the discussion.</p>

<p>"In one small paragraph you try to connect third world countries, mixed economies, and college tuition."
-two paragraphs. third world countries represents one idea. if you need me to support that assertion then you have been isolated in the suburbs of the us for too long. </p>

<p>then, i went on to explain, in careful wording, that pure capitalism rarely ever works. why did i say, “rarely ever works”? because i'm fairly positive that there have been some studies somewhere in history that showed pure capitalism to work. i cannot site them, but i would rather not say something as if it is a fact when it my not be (unlike you). try to see things in a different light.</p>

<p>afterwards, i explained what most economies are now, which debaser failed to acknowledge when he responded to esquared. if you need me to support that assertion then you haven’t done enough research on economics. </p>

<p>in a leap, i then, stated what happens when an economy leans heavily towards capitalism. my example was the us. i supported my assertion that it does not work at an optimal level by highlighting the cost of a private college (uofc).</p>

<p>you must not have anything to say in response to my points since you were forced to critique my organization. </p>

<p>on another note, here are a few of your comments that are not presented well/show how misinformed you are.</p>

<p>“First I'd like to ask - what are we products of?”
-nature and nurture (all causes, for that matter). it’s stunning that someone hasn’t come across this information before.</p>

<p>“All humans are born tabula rasa (blank slate) - a person isn't <em>inherently</em> anything (disregarding the notion of ‘a priori’).”
-yes, and regarding the notion of “a priori” humans are born with inherent traits. support of the idea of a pure tabula rasa died back in the 18th century with kant’s critique of pure reason.</p>

<p>“A person either chooses good actions and his character forms and supports those principles, or he chooses evil and has his character form and support that.”
-you’re not acknowledging determinism. furthermore, you haven’t defined good and evil. what happened to explaining yourself and citing examples? </p>

<p>“By saying that we are solely the product of our surroundings you deny the fact of human volition and free will.”
-human free will is not a fact. do you just argue about subjects in which you have little to no prior knowledge? </p>

<p>your philosophical underpinnings are very immature and not well thought out; it reflects your views on economic systems and decisions as well.</p>

142

<p>Mr. Hubris -</p>

<p>Since your post was a couple of pages back let's review exactly what you said:</p>

<p>
[quote]

debaser (fan of the pixies?), try telling that to exploited, third world countries.
second, free market, pure capitalism rarely ever works. thus, most countries have a nice blend of socialism and capitalism. however, the us is one of the few countries in the world that leans heavily towards capitalism... and now the gap between the rich and poor is widening... hence, we have colleges that cost roughly 46K a year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First you assert that third world countries aren't being treated fairly by capitalism (and by that I assume you mean multinational corporations). The problem I think that you have is that you judge the standards of living in third world countries to the standard of living you're accustomed to in the United States. Wealth is a relative term. Let me ask you a question: Do you think the citizens of any third world country would be better off without any foreign companies offering them jobs? If you recognize that having multi-national corporations in third world countries <em>does</em> raise their standard of living, then you must also realize that no one forces anyone to take a job that they don't want. A corporation has the right to pay its workers whatever they wish - if the workers think they are being treated unfairly then they are under no obligation to take that job. They can find work in other venues that existed before that corporation arrived. The reason factories in third world countries work so well is because they <em>do</em> pay more than other jobs. You know what - maybe you're right. Maybe those companies <em>should</em> stop "exploiting" their workers. They should pack up their factories and ship out. Except you might want to ask those workers first - they might want to continue being "exploited." I think you've been sheltered in the suburbia of the US too long - you might want to actually talk to the people you're trying to represent.</p>

<p>You then state that capitalism causes the gap between the rich and poor to widen. You know what - why don't you open a history book? Ever hear of something called the Industrial Revolution? It <em>created</em> the middle class effectively <em>shortening</em> the gap between the rich and poor. Boy, those evil capitalists really did a number on us - they created cities, factories, jobs, developed technology, raised the average life span 30 years and allowed you to enjoy the life you live today. If we didn't have capitalism and industrialization then <em>we</em> would be living in a third world country and the United States wouldn't be around to support 70% of the world. In a hundred more years those evil capitalists will (if given the opportunity) expand and develop those "exploited" third world countries and the same thing that happened at the turn of the last century in the US will happen there.</p>

<p>You then state that college is too expensive. First of all you don't have to go to college - many people don't and no one if forcing you. Secondly, through financial aid no one pays the sticker price anyway. And lastly if you don't like the aid that, for instance, UChicago is giving you, then go to a community college or a college that you <em>can</em> afford. Trying to use this as an example of the "failure" of capitalism (despite it's obvious success) is ridiculous.</p>

<p>You then take isolated quotes from several of my posts and try to prove my ignorance. Instead you seal your own. Why do you think that Kant's superiority is self evident? He's one philosopher in a pool of many who are mistaken.</p>

<p>In you're second quote of mine you say that I'm not acknowledging determinism. Of course I'm not - I am advocating the opposite. You then ask me to expound on the nature of good and evil. Would you like me to post a discourse on that - because I think I'd need to devote a whole other post to it.</p>

<p>Finally, free will <em>is</em> a fact. It's self-evident actually. The fact that you are capable to make your own choices, to think for yourself refutes determinism offhand. And I'm emminently capable of saying that, by sole virtue of being a human. Where's the proof for determinism? Oh yeah, that's right - there is none.</p>

<p>Try actually thinking for a change.</p>

143

<p>Ah, free will versus determinism! What a refreshing change of topics!</p>

<p>Myself- Freewill is neither self-evident, nor is it a fact. It's a complex system that can neither be proven nor disproven, at least as far as modern philosophy is concerned. I personally believe in free will, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that I "choose" to believe in free will.</p>

<p>Essentially, if you believe in materialism, you <em>probably</em> believe in determinism. Afterall, at that point, the brain is a chemical system that responds to signals from the external world as well as anything else. Matter, after all, is governed by reason. Ah hah, the clever debater asks, "What about quantum mechanics? Isn't there probability in that, and couldn't that probability be free will?" To which I respond in two ways.</p>

<p>(1)On the quantum level, all matter experiences such probability problems, and yet, we do not insist that chairs have free will.
(2)The probability problem is likely caused, not by actual randomness in the movements of subatomic particles, but by an incomplete model of quantum mechanics.</p>

<p>Of course, you could make a skeptical argument that just because some matter responds in regular ways to physical stimuli, we cannot infer that all matter responds the same way. In fact, maybe humans, or all sentient life is special. Maybe their matter is fundamentally different.</p>

<p>However, of course, the matter I'm composed of is no different than the matter anything else is composed of, and in fact, replaced completely every 7 years.</p>

<p>Ah, the skeptic voice in me continues: So? Maybe I'm just horribly mistaken.</p>

<p>So the only possible way a person with a materialist conception of the human mind can approve of free will is with absolute skepticism regarding everything else. That seems like something of a paradox; to be certain of materialism, and yet skeptical of the way it's implemented. Therefore, I'm going to reject this possibility.</p>

<p>There are two other possibilities. One is dualism, or a soul external to the body. This is an attractive possibility, but a lot of people will make fun of you for being religious.</p>

<p>The other is, of course, the skeptical perspective. "What do I know, anyway?"</p>

<p>Case in point, the illusion of choice does NOT necessarily imply free will. It ONLY implies free will in a system of dualism.</p>

<p>Or does it?</p>

<p>Of course, it's not even necessary for a non-material phenomenon, like a soul, to be exempt from determinism! Why should it be? Consider for a moment, the idea of an abstract idea that does not exist in a neural pathway or something physical like that. Consider the abstract ideas of 2 and 2. When you put them together, you are inclined to get the abstract idea of 4. If that isn't a suggestion for determinism regarding even SOULS, I do not know what is.</p>

<p>Therefore, you effectively have to argue, "I believe in free will because I believe in free will," NOT "I believe in free will because it is self evident," because all that IS EVIDENT is a system of stimuli and responses. There is no EVIDENCE of a will. e.g., I choose to go left because the incredibly complex system of my brain combined with the incredibly complex system of the universe have an incredibly complex, virtually unmappable reaction that has the practical effect that I go left. If you wanted, you could just consider the entire universe one system, and then you arrive very nicely at a solipsism (sp).</p>

<p>QED, *****.</p>

144

<p>Zach -</p>

<p>You're right, this is more interesting and possibly less volitile. Maybe we could split the thread.</p>

<hr>

<p>Neuroscience thus far, is in its infancy as a science. The phenomenon of consciousness is, I believe, a more fundamental issue. If we can determine what causes consciousness then free will is merely an application of it.</p>

<p>Because the biological basis is unknown at this point we must debate this in philosophical terms.</p>

<p>I think that this quote from Dr. Peikoff is a good way to begin:</p>

<p>
[quote]

The principle of volition is a philosophic axiom, with all the features this involves. It is a primary—a starting point of conceptual cognition and of the subject of epistemology; to direct one's consciousness, one must be free and one must know, at least implicitly, that one is. It is a fundamental: every item of conceptual knowledge requires some form of validation, the need of which rests on the fact of volition. It is self-evident. And it is inescapable. Even its enemies have to accept and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let us see why.</p>

<p>When the determinist claims that man is determined, this applies to all man's ideas also, including his own advocacy of determinism. Given the factors operating on him, he believes, he had to become a determinist, just as his opponents had no alternative but to oppose him. How then can he know that his viewpoint is true? Are the factors that shape his brain infallible? Does he automatically follow reason and logic? Clearly not; if he did, error would be impossible to him.</p>

<p>Volition, accordingly, is not an independent philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. Not every consciousness has the faculty of volition. Every fallible, conceptual consciousness, however, does have it.</p>

<p>If a determinist tried to assess his viewpoint as knowledge, he would have to say, in effect: "I am in control of my mind. I do have the power to decide to focus on reality. I do not merely submit spinelessly to whatever distortions happen to be decreed by some chain of forces stretching back to infinity. I am free, free to be objective, free to conclude—that I am not free."</p>

<p>Like any rejection of a philosophic axiom, determinism is self-refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it, so one must accept volition in order to deny it. A philosophic axiom cannot be proved, because it is one of the bases of proof. But for the same reason it cannot be escaped, either. By its nature, it is impregnable.

[/quote]
</p>

145

<p>Sweet Lord.</p>

146

<p>great balls of fire</p>

147

<p>Since you seem to want to argue in the words of other philosophers, I'll save a formal response until after I find an appropriate argument in my texts. For now, I'm going to speak only on the idea of axioms.</p>

<p>"A philosophic axiom cannot be proved, because it is one of the bases of proof. But for the same reason it cannot be escaped, either. By its nature, it is impregnable."</p>

<p>Axioms are not impregnable. They strive to be impregnable, of course, but often they are merely assumptions that are taken for granted in order to make progress. Thus, I will grant that you can build a philosophical system off of the axiom of volition. However, that does not in inself validate the axiom of volition. I'm now going to briefly address some of Dr. Peikoff's concerns. For a more thorough refutation, READ SOMEBODY THAT ISN'T INFLUENCED BY AYN RAND. In the meantime, consider these points.</p>

<p>"When the determinist claims that man is determined, this applies to all man's ideas also, including his own advocacy of determinism. Given the factors operating on him, he believes, he had to become a determinist, just as his opponents had no alternative but to oppose him."</p>

<p>This is true.</p>

<p>"How then can he know that his viewpoint is true? Are the factors that shape his brain infallible? Does he automatically follow reason and logic? Clearly not; if he did, error would be impossible to him."</p>

<p>This does not prove determinism false. Does a computer follow reason and logic? Yes. What if a computer is programmed with incorrect axioms? If you tell a computer that 2 and 3 make 7? There is still rule, and yet the rule is not in accord with the rule of nature. This is how error happens. As Ayn Rand herself insists, an apparent contradiction is in reality a result of incorrect axioms. Therefore, errors occur in human reasoning because people may be conditioned to work with incorrect axioms.</p>

<p>Furthermore, reason is itself not perfect. Some philosophers--Hobbes, Locke--will argue that the faculty of reason is the same in all men. However, this supposes reason to be fundamental to man. Nietzsche does a nice job of providing an alternative theory in "On the Genealogy of Morals". Surprisingly, when I read Nietzsche, I found myself thinking, "This is a more sophisticated and thorough version of Rand and Aristotle." Maybe my analysis of Nietzsche is incorrect, but it's worth investigating.</p>

<p>"Volition, accordingly, is not an independent philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. Not every consciousness has the faculty of volition. Every fallible, conceptual consciousness, however, does have it."</p>

<p>Accordingly, no, it's not. It's only a corrolary is it's actually proved. All that Peikoff has managed to do above is show that determinism is not proven. He has done nothing to show that free will actually follows from consciousness.</p>

<p>"If a determinist tried to assess his viewpoint as knowledge, he would have to say, in effect: "I am in control of my mind. I do have the power to decide to focus on reality. I do not merely submit spinelessly to whatever distortions happen to be decreed by some chain of forces stretching back to infinity. I am free, free to be objective, free to conclude—that I am not free."</p>

<p>Peikoff's language here is deceptive. He says, "If a determinist TRIED", which of course implies a will. A determinist, of course, would say that he tried nothing. Perhaps Peikoff is arguing that the determinist cannot confirm his claim? That does not invalidate the claim. Of course, at this point Peikoff is assuming a particular model of knowledge. There are many models of knowledge to choose from, and not all models of knowledge require a positive action of the will.</p>

<p>I admit that I haven't read all that philosophy has to offer. However, one of my Professors here has mentioned Spinoza when the class discussion has turned to determinism... If you have free time (and if I have free time), we may both want to consider turning to his texts.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I have recently had the opportunity to watch Dr. Yaron Brooks, current President of the ARI (Apparently one of your influences, if you're quoting Peikoff) debate at the University of Chicago against one of our faculty members on the issue of foreign aid. He was a pretty funny guy. Blast it, it's 9th week, and I'm probably the only University of Chicago student wasting time on message boards talking about philosophy. Most University students, are, of course, wasting time in the courtyards and hallways talking about philosophy. Join us!</p>

148

<p>Ayn Rand was not a philosopher, and anyone who takes her as seriously as her followers is not considered seriously in academia.</p>

<p>Additionally, though no one mentioned this (I think), randomness at the quantum level (or at any level, for that matter) does not imply indeterminism. To be sure, determinism would be preferable if we only had a choice between that and randomness.</p>

<p>For disabuse on free will - and to prevent discussions on it from digressing into nonsensical claims about cognitive science - I suggest the following text:</p>

<p>Daniel Dennett, *Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting<a href="Cambridge:%20MIT%20Press">/i</a>. </p>

<p>I think the text is around 176 pages, so it should take a week to read.</p>

<p>An interesting tack to the free will problem is Robert Nozick's: in epistemology, our belief that p tracks the truth that p, which entails the following two propositions:</p>

<p>1) If p were true, person x would believe it.
2) If p were not true, person x would not believe it.</p>

<p>These two conditions can be represented as follows, though do not confuse the "arrows" for material conditionals.</p>

<p>1a) p -> q
2a) ~p -> ~q</p>

<p>Note that the above two conditions cannot be contraposed. The above two claims are subjunctive conditionals. Another way of referring to them is as counterfactual conditionals: there is some p such that on all closest possible worlds, if p were true, q (x would believe it) would also be true and if p were false, q would be false.</p>

<p>Now if we extend the modal claim to free will, one could argue that one's actions track bestness; that is,</p>

<p>1b) If action p were best, person x would do it.
2b) If action p were not the best, person x would not do it.</p>

<p>What are the flaws in this view?</p>

<p>Just a reminder: modern epistemology is outmoded. Contemporary analytic metaphysics and epistemology rarely involve many of the crude claims espoused by Descartes et al. - that is not to say that they are not valuable sources for learning. If you want to have serious and substantive discussion on epistemology, familiarize yourself with the logical positivist movement onwards.</p>

149

<p>Zach: I was there with the redhead girl who learned she can't speak in public. :)</p>

<p>Yaron Brook owns.</p>

<p>Are you going to the Chicago Friends of Israel event tonight?</p>

150

<p>Zach-</p>

<p>Feel free to use whatever sources you would like, if you think it would help your argument. Please remember that an idea must be judged on its own merits without bias as to its source.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Since you seem to want to argue in the words of other philosophers...

[/quote]

I don't have to if you find it objectionable. I quote Peikoff because it is relevant to this discussion. I simply find it easier not trying to reinvent the wheel if a particular argument has already been effectively stated. As long as we respond to each source, we aren't simply "talking past one another."</p>

<hr>

<p>This is a false analogy. A computer cannot percieve reality and is merely fed information. This analogy would only be valid if humans could not perceive reality and could not verify the validity of the false logic.</p>

<p>
[quote]

This does not prove determinism false. Does a computer follow reason and logic? Yes. What if a computer is programmed with incorrect axioms? If you tell a computer that 2 and 3 make 7? There is still rule, and yet the rule is not in accord with the rule of nature. This is how error happens. As Ayn Rand herself insists, an apparent contradiction is in reality a result of incorrect axioms. Therefore, errors occur in human reasoning because people may be conditioned to work with incorrect axioms.

[/quote]
Bold Mine</p>

<p>This is incorrect. Errors occur in human reasoning because people hold incorrect premises. A false axiom is a contradiction in terms. Axioms precede reasoning.</p>

<p>The following quote is a continuation from Peikoff's same argument as above (not continuously). I think this may clear up some of the nature of axioms.</p>

<p>
[quote]

"People disagree about axioms," we often hear. "What is self-evident to one may not be self-evident to another. How then can a man know that his axioms are objectively true? How can he ever be sure he is right?"</p>

<p>This argument starts by accepting the concept of "disagreement," which it uses to challenge the objectivity of any axioms, including existence, consciousness, and identity. The following condensed dialogue suggests one strategy by which to reveal the argument's contradictions. The strategy begins with A, the defender of axioms, purporting to reject outright the concept of "disagreement."</p>

<p>A. "Your objection to the self-evident has no validity. There is no such thing as disagreement. People agree about everything."</p>

<p>B. "That's absurd. People disagree constantly, about all kinds of things."</p>

<p>A. "How can they? There's nothing to disagree about, no subject matter. After all, nothing exists."</p>

<p>B. "Nonsense. All kinds of things exist. You know that as well as I do."</p>

<p>A. "That's one. You must accept the existence axiom even to utter the term 'disagreement.' But, to continue, I still claim that disagreement is unreal. How can people disagree, since they are unconscious beings who are unable to hold ideas at all?"</p>

<p>B. "Of course people hold ideas. They are conscious beings—you know that."</p>

<p>A. "There's another axiom. But even so, why is disagreement about ideas a problem? Why should it suggest that one or more of the parties is mistaken? Perhaps all of the people who disagree about the very same point are equally, objectively right."</p>

<p>B. "That's impossible. If two ideas contradict each other, they can't both be right. Contradictions can't exist in reality. After all, things are what they are. A is A."</p>

<p>Existence, consciousness, identity are presupposed by every statement and by every concept, including that of "disagreement." (They are presupposed even by invalid concepts, such as "ghost" or "analytic" truth.) In the act of voicing his objection, therefore, the objector has conceded the case. In any act of challenging or denying the three axioms, a man reaffirms them, no matter what the particular content of his challenge.

[/quote]

Again the preceeding quote does not prove the existence of axioms - only you can verify them through your senses - reality is the most persuasive argument I can give you.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Incidentally, I have recently had the opportunity to watch Dr. Yaron Brooks, current President of the ARI (Apparently one of your influences, if you're quoting Peikoff) debate at the University of Chicago against one of our faculty members on the issue of foreign aid. He was a pretty funny guy. Blast it, it's 9th week, and I'm probably the only University of Chicago student wasting time on message boards talking about philosophy. Most University students, are, of course, wasting time in the courtyards and hallways talking about philosophy.

[/quote]

I heard that there was a debate at UChicago, but I didn't hear of the outcome. Was it judged? Is there a transcript of the debate that you know about?</p>

<p>
[quote]

Join us!

[/quote]

That's what I'm hoping. I'll find out in about a month :).</p>

151

<p>
[quote]
Again the preceeding quote does not prove the existence of axioms - only you can verify them through your senses - reality is the most persuasive argument I can give you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then that is unfortunate, since 'persuasion' is insufficient for refuting skepticism.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is a false analogy. A computer cannot percieve reality and is merely fed information. This analogy would only be valid if humans could not perceive reality and could not verify the validity of the false logic

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do hope that if and when you go to UChicago, you take an actual course in logic. Much of your post smacks of amateurish reasoning.</p>

<p>Also, Peikoff is not a philosopher. Tell any philosophy professor at UChicago that you are writing a thesis (or paper) on him, and he will either throw something at you or weep.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Within the dominant philosophical movement in the English-speaking world, analytic philosophy, Rand's work has been mostly ignored. No leading research university in this tradition considers Rand or Objectivism to be an important philosophical specialty or research area, as is documented by Brian Leiter's report [9]

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
A notable exception to the general lack of attention paid to Rand is the essay "On the Randian Argument" by Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick, which appears in his collection Socratic Puzzles. Nozick's own libertarian political conclusions are similar to Rand's, but his essay criticizes her foundational argument in ethics, which claims that one's own life is, for each individual, the only ultimate value because it makes all other values possible. To make this argument sound, Nozick argues that Rand still needs to explain why someone could not rationally prefer the state of eventually dying and having no values. Thus, he argues, her attempt to deduce the morality of selfishness is essentially an instance of assuming the conclusion or begging the question and that her solution to David Hume's famous is-ought problem is unsatisfactory.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I highly suggest you read the essay. It is in 'Socratic Puzzles' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).</p>

152

<p>
[quote]

Then that is unfortunate, since 'persuasion' is insufficient for refuting skepticism.

[/quote]

You're quite right, refuting skepticism requires proof. Reality is the proof.</p>

<p>
[quote]

I do hope that if and when you go to UChicago, you take an actual course in logic. Much of your post smacks of amateurish reasoning.

[/quote]

Then perhaps you could point out my errors.</p>

<p>Why don't you consider Ayn Rand a philosopher? Why don't you consider Dr. Peikoff a philosopher?</p>

<p>Define philosopher.</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
You're quite right, refuting skepticism requires proof. Reality is the proof.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That begs the question.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Then perhaps you could point out my errors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above.</p>

154

<p>Neverborn-
I am definitely a friend of Israel, but I wasn't aware of a thing going on tonight, nor am I actually a member of a club for friends of Israel. Maybe I should join it.</p>

<p>Myself-
The debate wasn't formally judged, but in my judgement, Dr. Brooks did not give a convincing case. You can hardly blame him, though, because he was obviously negating, which is a REALLY hard stance to take, since foreign aid is so universally popular (Marshall Plan, anyone? Israel? He basically had to argue that US aid to Israel was a bad idea. The fact that he's an Israeli and he genuinely believes that is surprising, but I'm going to give him credit on the topic for being from the country.)</p>

<p>Also, since nspeds pointed us at such hopefully illuminating texts, I'm going to withdraw my statement about finding resources to defend my claims.</p>

<p>Finally, you listed three axioms- Existence, consciousness, and identity. Volition is conspicuously absent from that list. However, I'm going to admit my lack of knowledge and, like Socrates, dedicate myself to finding the answers before arguing with you further.</p>

<p>nspeds-
You're obviously more versed in the formal language of philosophy than I am. That's okay, though, because I'm a physics major. I actually don't know much about the philosophy department here. I've heard that it's mostly analytic philosophy, and I know that there are a lot of logic courses. And I'm pretty sure that I implied that randomness does not imply indeterminism, though my language wasn't perfect, when I said,</p>

<p>"(1)On the quantum level, all matter experiences such probability problems, and yet, we do not insist that chairs have free will.
(2)The probability problem is likely caused, not by actual randomness in the movements of subatomic particles, but by an incomplete model of quantum mechanics."</p>

<p>I realize that that is more of an argument against free will than indeterminism. However, it suffices for the purpose of this discussion.</p>

155

<p>
[quote]
nspeds-
You're obviously more versed in the formal language of philosophy than I am. That's okay, though, because I'm a physics major. I actually don't know much about the philosophy department here. I've heard that it's mostly analytic philosophy, and I know that there are a lot of logic courses. And I'm pretty sure that I implied that randomness does not imply indeterminism, though my language wasn't perfect, when I said,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I want to be a physics major.</p>

156

<p>Myself-</p>

<p>you commented, "I think you've been sheltered in the suburbia of the US too long - you might want to actually talk to the people you're trying to represent."</p>

<p>i live in indonesia, buddy.
poverty is one of those things you have to see first hand in order to truly understand. everyday, as i sit in traffic, little girls come within a centimeter of my car window and look in with sad, begging eyes. all they desire is a mere 500 thou (equivalent to 5 cents) so that they can afford to buy a little food. they are just trying to live- attempting to survive. can one of the little girls go to a soup kitchen? no. can one of the little girls receive a welfare payment? no.
perhaps if their parents earned a little bit more money, they could afford to go to school and they wouldn't have to beg on the streets. but that's not their life.
people are not thankful for being exploited. however, they are willing to be exploited in order to survive. </p>

<p>-you said, "Maybe those companies <em>should</em> stop "exploiting" their workers. They should pack up their factories and ship out." but it's unreasonable to think that the only way firms can run their business overseas is to downright exploit their workers. it's cruel and unnecessary. why not take a little bit of money from the ultra-rich and give it to those little girls? this is an inherent flaw in capitalism, do you agree? </p>

<p>-you also said, "Ever hear of something called the Industrial Revolution? It <em>created</em> the middle class effectively <em>shortening</em> the gap between the rich and poor." that may be true, but it does not invalidate the fact that it is widening the gap between the rich and the poor, now.
anyhow, the industrial revolution created a large gap between businesses owners and workers. it was not until socialist movements arose that justice was carried out and the poor began earning a little bit more money.</p>

<p>-in addition, you stated, "In a hundred more years those evil capitalists will (if given the opportunity) expand and develop those "exploited" third world countries and the same thing that happened at the turn of the last century in the US will happen there."</p>

<p>what evil capitalists are you referring to? i thought you supported capitalism and indicated evil was inferior to good. sarcasm is not an argument. secondly, evil capitalists could develop a nation just as well as evil socialists.</p>

<p>-to clarify, i did not state that college is too expensive. i stated that paying 46k for a private college is too expensive for many people. coincidently, it just so happens that students who pay more for college usually begin with better jobs after they get out. someone who goes to community college for two years will probably have to work far harder to obtain the same things that someone who goes to a prestigious college may.
now, lets consider why people who go to better colleges get paid more. logically we can say that they are better trained/received a better education. thus they are more desirable. this, in effect, means that they are more likely to succeed. therefore, someone who has more money may go to a better college, earn more money, and then attempt to continue the cycle with their children.
now, as we can see that the offspring of the wealthy are more likely to succeed, it easy to understand one of the reasons why they don't want other people to earn as much money as they do. thus they tend to favor lower welfare payments, minimum wages, lower middle-class worker wages, etc...
in addition, i recognize that with lower labor costs, the wealthy (ie major business owners, upper-middle class citizens, etc...) have higher wages for themselves; allowing them to live the high life, while others struggle.</p>

<p>-i believe that kant was correct in his critique of pure reason because he clearly and decisively showed that space and time are a prior. if you wish, i can summarize his arguments for you. the point is, humans are born with predispositions and thus tabula rasa applied to individuals is illogical.</p>

<p>-i would split the indeterminism vs. determinism topic into another thread, but the forum's purpose is not to provide a place to discuss philosophy. </p>

<p>-by definition, i am thinking right now and i was thinking when i typed my last posts. thus, i am confounded by your statement, "Try actually thinking for a change." it sounds like plebeian talk, not upper-class- i'm utterly capitalistic- talk.</p>

157

<p>I have to say, us foreigners probably have more humbling life experiences than you do. Matt, have you ever been to slums in the bad parts of town?
I remember when as a kid the same car situation used to happen to me with people missing hands arms and legs used to come up and beg for food and money for food. The sad thing is that some of them have 'ringleaders' who give them this appearance so that they look needy enough to warrant people helping them out.
Instinctual needs are important, people are willing to exploit themselves and others in order to fulfill their physical needs. If someone has to eat and hasn't eaten in days, then they will go around begging for food.</p>

<p>Matt, I understand where you're coming from and find that I have to agree with you on that.</p>

<p>Myself, please control yourself and stop with the personal remarks (try actually thinking for a change, etc.). They just make you look ignorant and that spoils this discussion, and your image. You actually have an image as you're not esquared (had to do it buddy :-p) and i don't believe that you're ignorant. So do lets have some fun here shall we?</p>

158

<p>Man I made sure I wouldn't post again but I guess I am breaking my promise. Anyways, while giving my own overview of my chicago experience I gave my own impressions about various aspects of the university and I hinted at the overnerdiness of a large portion of the population and a lack of maturity in a sizeable minority. This anti-recruitment effort happens every year and it gets stupider every year. No offense, I have nothing aginst protesting recruitment but the manner of yelling and physical mess is a pain in the a$$ to clean up. As far as I know there have been various arrests for overpartying and getting drunk after I left, but that happens at a lot of campuses, the problem with this incident is the fact it happens every year and no one does anything about it. The grotesque chants and curses said at some of these protets leads to these kids' arrests not usually what they're protesting. I hinted this out a few years ago as damaging to the campus' reputation, but people were always like "every individual is responsible for his/her actions." Please, BS to the max, if a university student or a member of a family does something, indeed it is their action, but their is also a unitary image to mantain. But anyways IMHO this is not the first incidence of this kind, this is only what got out to the news, actually not even the news, but someone's blog. There were 8 people smoking pot in my dorming house once, and not a single one of them was suspended or anything put on their record of any sort, just cleaning various places on campus. It just hates me to say this, but UChicago undergraduates bring so much, but the damn school wastes it out of them. No offense.</p>

<p>As for matt, yea that's tough, but that's how 75%+ of the world lives. Whining about it on a post on the internet or writing about it in a college essay won't do you any good. Everyone knows about how poor people are, and how hard life is. The key isn't to think about things, or dwell over them, its about changing them.</p>

159

<p>Some of us do things to try to help :-)</p>

160

<p>Doct0r,</p>

<p>-"university student or a member of a family does something, indeed it is their action, but their is also a unitary image to mantain."</p>

<p>who says what "the unitary image" should be?
IMHO a university should be comprised of an eclectic group of people who are more than willing to share their opinion. that is what the protesters did; they were arrested for it. other uofc students are therefore challenged to either defend or criticize their actions. thus the protesters have furthered the intellect and diversity of thought among uofc students.
a unitary image should be virtually non-existant with a group of over 4,000 people; otherwise the college has done something terribly wrong.</p>

<p>-"It just hates me to say this, but UChicago undergraduates bring so much, but the damn school wastes it out of them."</p>

<p>what?! because a few students drink, protest, or smoke pot at uofc the school wastes "it" (to what does "it" refer) out of them?</p>

<p>-"The key isn't to think about things, or dwell over them, its about changing them."</p>

<p>to change requires thought. in addition, i illustrated a point to "myself" in the section of my post which regarded the traffic in the city where i live; i'm offended by your accusation that i was whining. i'm in interact, amnesty international, and habitat for humanity... so as you can see, i am doing as much as time will allow me to. </p>

<p>-"Everyone knows about how poor people are, and how hard life is."</p>

<p>Yes, everyone knows about it, but it takes new meaning when people see it themselves.</p>

<p>ridethecliche,</p>

<p>-that's interesting (and terrifying) that some of the beggers have ringleaders... i never knew that. i have indeed been to the slums of the city and it's still hard for me to completely comprehend. their way of life is so much different than ours, it's difficult for me to attempt to feel what they feel and see the world as they do. where did (or do) you live?</p>