A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1177799081242816512",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"content": "\"Existence exists\". This is one of the three primary axioms in Objectivism. Today's post is not about its validity or validation - many people have done that by now, including myself (link in the comments), and quite frankly, it's rather boring. Instead, I will unpack a few of the axiom's interesting implications.<br /><br />The first implication is what I call the \"self-sufficiency of existence\". Existence exists - it is not made to exist by some external factor, whether that is a deity, as countless religions claim, or \"pre-existing laws of nature\", as the Stephen Hawking type of <br />physicists often argue for. Both of these ideas, although superficially different, share the same flaw - they assume the existence of something which, by its very definition, does not exist. In other words, existence does not need, and cannot have a \"cause\", a \"starting point\", or a \"precondition\", because something that does not exist cannot act or effect change. If something did create the universe as we know it, it would be part of existence as much as its creation, and would abide by the same fundamental rules.<br /><br />The second implication is what I call the \"unity of existence\". Mystics, whether religious or secular, often postulate the existence of different realities, with different identities - a \"natural world\" and a \"supernatural\" one. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic notions of hell and paradise are clear examples of this type of belief, but there are less obvious, and therefore more insidious instances of it. Philosophers and scientists who see the mind or the soul as fundamentally different from physical phenomena, for example, make the same mistake as every other mystic - they split existence into \"the realm of matter\" and \"the realm of the mind/soul\". This necessarily leads one to the belief that certain fundamental aspects of existence, such as identity, do not apply to one of the \"realms\".<br /><br />The \"brain in a vat\" (BIV) thought experiment is a good example of such a mistake. Simply put, the BIV is the hypothesis that all we experience could be an illusion caused by of some sort of \"mad scientist\" stimulating parts of our brain in a laboratory. It is essentially a pseudo-philosophical version of the old Buddhist belief that this world is an illusion which keeps us from experiencing Nirvana. The axiom of existence does not contradict these ideas per se, as our hypothetical deluded mind would still be something that exists - the idea contradicts itself, as it relies on observations of the very reality it rejects. People who indulge these ideas, however, often do so because it allows them to split existence in half - the \"real half\", which is absolute and unknowable, and the \"illusory half\", which can be thought of as a Matrix-like experience, which can be bent to our desires.<br /><br />Lastly, the axiom of existence also has psycho-epistemological implications. To grasp it is to grasp the fundamental difference between the minds of animals, children and primitive men, who view the world as a set of disconnected existents which are both mental and physical at once; and the mind of a rational individual, who views existence as a complex system of inter-connected existents possessing identity. It is only because we grasp the fact that existence exists, i.e. that everything shares certain fundamental similarities simply because they exist, and thus can be grouped into the concept \"existence\", that philosophy, and all its many benefits are made possible.<br /><br />Some of you might have picked up on the similarity between the BIV/Buddhist world-view, and Immanuel Kant's split of existence into noumenal and phenomenal reality. That's what I'll be talking about tomorrow.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1177799081242816512",
"published": "2020-11-24T02:33:02+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "\"Existence exists\". This is one of the three primary axioms in Objectivism. Today's post is not about its validity or validation - many people have done that by now, including myself (link in the comments), and quite frankly, it's rather boring. Instead, I will unpack a few of the axiom's interesting implications.\n\nThe first implication is what I call the \"self-sufficiency of existence\". Existence exists - it is not made to exist by some external factor, whether that is a deity, as countless religions claim, or \"pre-existing laws of nature\", as the Stephen Hawking type of \nphysicists often argue for. Both of these ideas, although superficially different, share the same flaw - they assume the existence of something which, by its very definition, does not exist. In other words, existence does not need, and cannot have a \"cause\", a \"starting point\", or a \"precondition\", because something that does not exist cannot act or effect change. If something did create the universe as we know it, it would be part of existence as much as its creation, and would abide by the same fundamental rules.\n\nThe second implication is what I call the \"unity of existence\". Mystics, whether religious or secular, often postulate the existence of different realities, with different identities - a \"natural world\" and a \"supernatural\" one. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic notions of hell and paradise are clear examples of this type of belief, but there are less obvious, and therefore more insidious instances of it. Philosophers and scientists who see the mind or the soul as fundamentally different from physical phenomena, for example, make the same mistake as every other mystic - they split existence into \"the realm of matter\" and \"the realm of the mind/soul\". This necessarily leads one to the belief that certain fundamental aspects of existence, such as identity, do not apply to one of the \"realms\".\n\nThe \"brain in a vat\" (BIV) thought experiment is a good example of such a mistake. Simply put, the BIV is the hypothesis that all we experience could be an illusion caused by of some sort of \"mad scientist\" stimulating parts of our brain in a laboratory. It is essentially a pseudo-philosophical version of the old Buddhist belief that this world is an illusion which keeps us from experiencing Nirvana. The axiom of existence does not contradict these ideas per se, as our hypothetical deluded mind would still be something that exists - the idea contradicts itself, as it relies on observations of the very reality it rejects. People who indulge these ideas, however, often do so because it allows them to split existence in half - the \"real half\", which is absolute and unknowable, and the \"illusory half\", which can be thought of as a Matrix-like experience, which can be bent to our desires.\n\nLastly, the axiom of existence also has psycho-epistemological implications. To grasp it is to grasp the fundamental difference between the minds of animals, children and primitive men, who view the world as a set of disconnected existents which are both mental and physical at once; and the mind of a rational individual, who views existence as a complex system of inter-connected existents possessing identity. It is only because we grasp the fact that existence exists, i.e. that everything shares certain fundamental similarities simply because they exist, and thus can be grouped into the concept \"existence\", that philosophy, and all its many benefits are made possible.\n\nSome of you might have picked up on the similarity between the BIV/Buddhist world-view, and Immanuel Kant's split of existence into noumenal and phenomenal reality. That's what I'll be talking about tomorrow.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1177799081242816512/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1175914137794973696",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"content": "Philosophy is the study of universal, fundamental truths - that which is true about existence as a whole, Man, and his relationship to existence. The very notion that we can discover such truths is rather bold, so... where do we start?<br /><br />The answer is: axioms.<br /><br />An axiom is a statement held to be true at the beginning of a thesis, which serves as its fundamental premise - in other words, a starting point for further thought. Although the term can be used in the specialized sciences to mean \"a statement we have previously established to be true beyond reasonable doubt\", in the context of philosophy, it means a \"statement which is self-evident, and undeniable\", and therefore a proper starting point for further inquiry into the universal. Because they are the starting point of philosophical inquiry, the validity of any system of philosophy rests on the validity of its axioms - just like a building collapses if its foundation isn't properly built, a system of ideas collapses if its fundamental premises are invalid.<br /><br />Because of the fundamental nature of axioms, every philosopher seeking to formulate an integrated philosophy - as opposed to a set of unconnected ideas - must start with statements that are self-evident, and therefore unquestionable. The issue, however, is that different philosophers disagree on the exact meaning of \"self-evident\", and different views on such a fundamental topic inevitably lead to very different philosophies.<br /><br />When the Founding Fathers claimed to hold certain truths as self-evident, they meant these truths are obvious and beyond doubt, i.e. that they could be easily discovered by anyone who thought rationally about the subject. Conceptualization, however, is not automatic. Any and every knowledge we have beyond what is given by direct perception must be actively formulated by integrating one's observations. To claim that a complex idea is \"self-evident\" amounts to refusing to explain the reasoning behind it, making it arbitrary. An arbitrary idea cannot be properly validated, promoted or defended, however true and good it might ultimately be, which is why Ayn Rand saw this as the Achilles' heel of the US Constitution.<br /><br />Idealists, on the other hand, often equate the \"self-evident\" with that which is true \"a priori\", i.e. without the need for any observation. Ludwig von Mises, for example, bases his economic theory on the action axiom - the idea that an individual always acts in accordance with his values. Following in the footsteps of Immanuel Kant, however, Mises validates this axiom, not through observation, but by claiming that it is a precondition to observation itself - that it is knowable, and undeniable without the need for any observation.<br /><br />Like Mises and the Founding Fathers, Ayn Rand places her axioms outside the realm of proof. According to her, proof \"is the process of deriving a conclusion, step by step, from the evidence of the senses\", and therefore presupposes certain premises, such as the validity of one's senses. Axioms, however, can and must be validated through any and every observation. To observe anything, for example, is to observe that existence exists, and that the observer exists, possessing consciousness - two of her primary axioms, which I will discuss in more depth next week.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1175914137794973696",
"published": "2020-11-18T21:42:56+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Philosophy is the study of universal, fundamental truths - that which is true about existence as a whole, Man, and his relationship to existence. The very notion that we can discover such truths is rather bold, so... where do we start?\n\nThe answer is: axioms.\n\nAn axiom is a statement held to be true at the beginning of a thesis, which serves as its fundamental premise - in other words, a starting point for further thought. Although the term can be used in the specialized sciences to mean \"a statement we have previously established to be true beyond reasonable doubt\", in the context of philosophy, it means a \"statement which is self-evident, and undeniable\", and therefore a proper starting point for further inquiry into the universal. Because they are the starting point of philosophical inquiry, the validity of any system of philosophy rests on the validity of its axioms - just like a building collapses if its foundation isn't properly built, a system of ideas collapses if its fundamental premises are invalid.\n\nBecause of the fundamental nature of axioms, every philosopher seeking to formulate an integrated philosophy - as opposed to a set of unconnected ideas - must start with statements that are self-evident, and therefore unquestionable. The issue, however, is that different philosophers disagree on the exact meaning of \"self-evident\", and different views on such a fundamental topic inevitably lead to very different philosophies.\n\nWhen the Founding Fathers claimed to hold certain truths as self-evident, they meant these truths are obvious and beyond doubt, i.e. that they could be easily discovered by anyone who thought rationally about the subject. Conceptualization, however, is not automatic. Any and every knowledge we have beyond what is given by direct perception must be actively formulated by integrating one's observations. To claim that a complex idea is \"self-evident\" amounts to refusing to explain the reasoning behind it, making it arbitrary. An arbitrary idea cannot be properly validated, promoted or defended, however true and good it might ultimately be, which is why Ayn Rand saw this as the Achilles' heel of the US Constitution.\n\nIdealists, on the other hand, often equate the \"self-evident\" with that which is true \"a priori\", i.e. without the need for any observation. Ludwig von Mises, for example, bases his economic theory on the action axiom - the idea that an individual always acts in accordance with his values. Following in the footsteps of Immanuel Kant, however, Mises validates this axiom, not through observation, but by claiming that it is a precondition to observation itself - that it is knowable, and undeniable without the need for any observation.\n\nLike Mises and the Founding Fathers, Ayn Rand places her axioms outside the realm of proof. According to her, proof \"is the process of deriving a conclusion, step by step, from the evidence of the senses\", and therefore presupposes certain premises, such as the validity of one's senses. Axioms, however, can and must be validated through any and every observation. To observe anything, for example, is to observe that existence exists, and that the observer exists, possessing consciousness - two of her primary axioms, which I will discuss in more depth next week.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1175914137794973696/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1175261834688847872",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"content": "I've written about several subjects which are not directly in the realm of philosophy, from specific sciences like economics and psychology, to political and artistic commentary. Because of that, the page gathered many followers who do not really know or care about Objectivism per se - they just like the topics I write about, the conclusions I reach, and the way I explain things.<br /><br />Well, if you like the result of my thinking, you might like to understand its basis, and the principles that guide it. With that in mind, I decided to explain the core ideas of Objectivism. If you're already familiar with Rand's ideas, fear not - I'll keep this interesting by presenting unusual applications of those ideas, and contrasting them with alternatives by other philosophers.<br /><br />Well... So what on Earth is Objectivism, and why should anyone invest time and effort in understanding it? <br /><br />Objectivism is a system of philosophy developed by Ayn Rand, a Russian novelist and philosopher who emigrated to the US in 1926. Here, she realized that the same process of philosophical and, consequently, cultural, political and economic decay that led to the horrors of the USSR was also happening in America, and Western society as a whole.<br /><br />She proceeded to identify, in essential terms, what made the US exceptionally good in the first place, and the reasons for its decay - to identify the principles and values adopted by its people, its flaws and merits, and their practical consequences. She did so indirectly through her art, portraying Man as he could and should be in her novels - and later, directly and explicitly through her non-fiction works.<br /><br />In a nutshell, she developed an integrated view on the 5 fundamental branches of Philosophy. In metaphysics, the study the fundamental aspects of existence, she held that things are what they are, independent of any form of consciousness - be it divine, individual, or collective. In epistemology, the study of knowledge, she argued against the religious idea of \"revelation\", as well as the \"truth is a matter of opinion/perspective\" approach of most modern philosophers. <br /><br />In ethics, the study of morality, she maintained that the individual himself is the ultimate beneficiary of a proper moral code, that Reason is his primary virtue, and that his own life should be his standard of value. Her rational egoism opposes any and every form of sacrifice, be it for a god, a social group, or \"others\" in general. Applying the same principles to the realm of politics, she arrived at a secular, rational identification of Man's right to his own life - opposing both the religious view of the Founding Fathers, and the collectivism of Progressives.<br /><br />In Esthetics, the study of art, she investigates the nature of Man's mind, why we need art in the first place, and how it works. She identifies that, being perceptual as well as conceptual beings, we need to bring our most abstract views down to the to concrete level. She then explains what art should be - what it should represent, and how. <br /><br />To put it bluntly, Objectivism allows one to transcend the duality of religious conservatism and subjectivist socialism that permeates current political, intellectual and artistic debate. If any of this interests you, stick around. Tomorrow, we'll start at the beginning, as I will talk about axioms.",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1175261834688847872",
"published": "2020-11-17T02:30:55+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "I've written about several subjects which are not directly in the realm of philosophy, from specific sciences like economics and psychology, to political and artistic commentary. Because of that, the page gathered many followers who do not really know or care about Objectivism per se - they just like the topics I write about, the conclusions I reach, and the way I explain things.\n\nWell, if you like the result of my thinking, you might like to understand its basis, and the principles that guide it. With that in mind, I decided to explain the core ideas of Objectivism. If you're already familiar with Rand's ideas, fear not - I'll keep this interesting by presenting unusual applications of those ideas, and contrasting them with alternatives by other philosophers.\n\nWell... So what on Earth is Objectivism, and why should anyone invest time and effort in understanding it? \n\nObjectivism is a system of philosophy developed by Ayn Rand, a Russian novelist and philosopher who emigrated to the US in 1926. Here, she realized that the same process of philosophical and, consequently, cultural, political and economic decay that led to the horrors of the USSR was also happening in America, and Western society as a whole.\n\nShe proceeded to identify, in essential terms, what made the US exceptionally good in the first place, and the reasons for its decay - to identify the principles and values adopted by its people, its flaws and merits, and their practical consequences. She did so indirectly through her art, portraying Man as he could and should be in her novels - and later, directly and explicitly through her non-fiction works.\n\nIn a nutshell, she developed an integrated view on the 5 fundamental branches of Philosophy. In metaphysics, the study the fundamental aspects of existence, she held that things are what they are, independent of any form of consciousness - be it divine, individual, or collective. In epistemology, the study of knowledge, she argued against the religious idea of \"revelation\", as well as the \"truth is a matter of opinion/perspective\" approach of most modern philosophers. \n\nIn ethics, the study of morality, she maintained that the individual himself is the ultimate beneficiary of a proper moral code, that Reason is his primary virtue, and that his own life should be his standard of value. Her rational egoism opposes any and every form of sacrifice, be it for a god, a social group, or \"others\" in general. Applying the same principles to the realm of politics, she arrived at a secular, rational identification of Man's right to his own life - opposing both the religious view of the Founding Fathers, and the collectivism of Progressives.\n\nIn Esthetics, the study of art, she investigates the nature of Man's mind, why we need art in the first place, and how it works. She identifies that, being perceptual as well as conceptual beings, we need to bring our most abstract views down to the to concrete level. She then explains what art should be - what it should represent, and how. \n\nTo put it bluntly, Objectivism allows one to transcend the duality of religious conservatism and subjectivist socialism that permeates current political, intellectual and artistic debate. If any of this interests you, stick around. Tomorrow, we'll start at the beginning, as I will talk about axioms.",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1175261834688847872/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1173369666948886528",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"content": "Methodology is the bridge between philosophy and the specialized sciences. In other words, the primary way in which philosophy shapes scientific theory is by establishing the proper rules that should guide the inquiry into a particular field of study. Before I explain the new developments in my theory of mind, then, it makes sense that I explain the methodology behind it. <br /><br />The classical cause-and-effect approach to causality proved rather sufficient for the natural sciences. Since there is no choice involved in the movement of a planet, or the chemical reactions between different substances, one needs only to isolate the causes of a particular type of event, identifying the principles by which it operates. This is done by designing and executing controlled experiments, in which all factors that influence a particular event are planned, measured and interpreted without contradiction. <br /><br />When it comes to the human sciences, methodology gets considerably trickier, as scientists don't quite know how to deal with choice. This has led to a field permeated by either materialism or idealism - two sides of the same inability to deal with the volitional nature of Man's consciousness. <br /><br />On one hand, materialists have tried to apply the cause-and-effect methodology of natural sciences to human action, ignoring the role and nature of choice altogether. This has led to deterministic schools of thought, such as Positivist economics, or Marxist political science, which view one's actions simply as a result of past. In Psychology, this led first to Behaviourism, and its view of thoughts as predictable epiphenomena, causally defined by the chemical makeup of one's brain. Later, it led to Cognitivism, a less radical offshoot of Behaviourism which focuses on the role of our physical structures in defining our subjective experience, regardless of our choices. <br /><br />On the other hand, idealists have attempted to reject general causality, positing exclusively teleological standards - a type of \"causality of the mind\", completely separate from the \"causality of matter\". In Economics, this is exemplified by subjectivist theories, such as Ludwig von Mises’ apriorism, which rejects any objective criteria of economic valuation, and Modern Monetary Theory, which denies the causal roots of money. In Psychology, this view led to the Constructivist approach, which sees the mind as a perfectly maleable “dough” with no objective nature, which can be shaped at will by social pressures. To a smaller, but significant degree, idealism has also influenced Psychoanalysis, leading authors to focus on the individual’s subjective needs more than on his objective nature. A good example of that is Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy, which focused on the individual’s subjective need for a purpose, without delving into how that need, or the nature of a particular purpose, might relate to one’s objective biological necessities. <br /><br />The proper approach – which is the one I’m using in my own theory - was pioneered by Franz Brentano, concretized by Carl Menger, and explicitly identified and made into a system by Antal Fekete. With his idea of “intentionality”, Brentano proposed a type of teleological causality, which is a particular instance of, and cannot contradict universal causality. Menger then put this to practice, developing a theory of economics based on Man’s objective needs, which must be met by means of subjective choice. Unlike the materialists, Menger acknowledged the role of choice – but unlike the idealists, he identified that choice is constrained by the objective necessities of one’s life. In other words, you will not value water automatically, but you cannot survive by choosing to drink liquid nitrogen – you must actively identify and value water (choice) if you are to survive (causality).<br /><br />Antal Fekete later defined this method of research as “dealing with the contact points between the logosphere and the protosphere”, the first being the realm of reason and teleological choice, and the latter being the realm of strict causality and natural phenomena. In other words, an economist must look at the realm of choices made possible to an individual by the causal factors around him, and the necessary consequences of his choices, once he has made them. To put it in concrete terms, we cannot look into what makes an individual choose to buy a bottle of water, but we can look into the factors that make that choice available and desirable, and the consequences of this choice to the economy as a whole. <br /><br />In Psychology, this approach means looking at one’s objective faculties, and what they enable one to choose. It also means looking at one’s objective biological needs at every single stage of life, and seeing what choices are available to an individual at each particular stage, and the consequences that these choices will have throughout his life. We must look at the faculties possessed by a toddler, and how he must choose to use these faculties to survive qua toddler – to be able to communicate his hunger, and to breastfeed, for example. Looking at all these possibilities, we must then see how different choices lead to different paths of development, and influence his scope of choices as a child, then as a teenager, then as an adult. This idea is at the root, albeit implicitly, of Sigmund Freud’s theory of Psychossexual development - which I will be dealing with next week. ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1173369666948886528",
"published": "2020-11-11T21:12:07+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Methodology is the bridge between philosophy and the specialized sciences. In other words, the primary way in which philosophy shapes scientific theory is by establishing the proper rules that should guide the inquiry into a particular field of study. Before I explain the new developments in my theory of mind, then, it makes sense that I explain the methodology behind it. \n\nThe classical cause-and-effect approach to causality proved rather sufficient for the natural sciences. Since there is no choice involved in the movement of a planet, or the chemical reactions between different substances, one needs only to isolate the causes of a particular type of event, identifying the principles by which it operates. This is done by designing and executing controlled experiments, in which all factors that influence a particular event are planned, measured and interpreted without contradiction. \n\nWhen it comes to the human sciences, methodology gets considerably trickier, as scientists don't quite know how to deal with choice. This has led to a field permeated by either materialism or idealism - two sides of the same inability to deal with the volitional nature of Man's consciousness. \n\nOn one hand, materialists have tried to apply the cause-and-effect methodology of natural sciences to human action, ignoring the role and nature of choice altogether. This has led to deterministic schools of thought, such as Positivist economics, or Marxist political science, which view one's actions simply as a result of past. In Psychology, this led first to Behaviourism, and its view of thoughts as predictable epiphenomena, causally defined by the chemical makeup of one's brain. Later, it led to Cognitivism, a less radical offshoot of Behaviourism which focuses on the role of our physical structures in defining our subjective experience, regardless of our choices. \n\nOn the other hand, idealists have attempted to reject general causality, positing exclusively teleological standards - a type of \"causality of the mind\", completely separate from the \"causality of matter\". In Economics, this is exemplified by subjectivist theories, such as Ludwig von Mises’ apriorism, which rejects any objective criteria of economic valuation, and Modern Monetary Theory, which denies the causal roots of money. In Psychology, this view led to the Constructivist approach, which sees the mind as a perfectly maleable “dough” with no objective nature, which can be shaped at will by social pressures. To a smaller, but significant degree, idealism has also influenced Psychoanalysis, leading authors to focus on the individual’s subjective needs more than on his objective nature. A good example of that is Viktor Frankl’s Logotherapy, which focused on the individual’s subjective need for a purpose, without delving into how that need, or the nature of a particular purpose, might relate to one’s objective biological necessities. \n\nThe proper approach – which is the one I’m using in my own theory - was pioneered by Franz Brentano, concretized by Carl Menger, and explicitly identified and made into a system by Antal Fekete. With his idea of “intentionality”, Brentano proposed a type of teleological causality, which is a particular instance of, and cannot contradict universal causality. Menger then put this to practice, developing a theory of economics based on Man’s objective needs, which must be met by means of subjective choice. Unlike the materialists, Menger acknowledged the role of choice – but unlike the idealists, he identified that choice is constrained by the objective necessities of one’s life. In other words, you will not value water automatically, but you cannot survive by choosing to drink liquid nitrogen – you must actively identify and value water (choice) if you are to survive (causality).\n\nAntal Fekete later defined this method of research as “dealing with the contact points between the logosphere and the protosphere”, the first being the realm of reason and teleological choice, and the latter being the realm of strict causality and natural phenomena. In other words, an economist must look at the realm of choices made possible to an individual by the causal factors around him, and the necessary consequences of his choices, once he has made them. To put it in concrete terms, we cannot look into what makes an individual choose to buy a bottle of water, but we can look into the factors that make that choice available and desirable, and the consequences of this choice to the economy as a whole. \n\nIn Psychology, this approach means looking at one’s objective faculties, and what they enable one to choose. It also means looking at one’s objective biological needs at every single stage of life, and seeing what choices are available to an individual at each particular stage, and the consequences that these choices will have throughout his life. We must look at the faculties possessed by a toddler, and how he must choose to use these faculties to survive qua toddler – to be able to communicate his hunger, and to breastfeed, for example. Looking at all these possibilities, we must then see how different choices lead to different paths of development, and influence his scope of choices as a child, then as a teenager, then as an adult. This idea is at the root, albeit implicitly, of Sigmund Freud’s theory of Psychossexual development - which I will be dealing with next week. ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1173369666948886528/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1171893125858824192",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569",
"content": "Hello everyone, it's good to be here!! You might be wondering what this page is, so let me give you a run down.<br /> <br />John Galt Speaking is a philosophy page, influenced by, but not constrained by the ideas of Ayn Rand and other Objectivist philosophers. We started out on Facebook, discussing themes that range from theory of mind to economic analysis, until we got banned. Now we came here.<br /><br />To make a long story short, Facebook banned the page because it \"could influence american elections\". In other words, the page is nearing 2000 followers, and has now become relevant enough for Facebook to be concerned over its content - and since I'm not an American citizen, my ideas are considered \"foreign intervention in the elections\". I honestly don't know whether to be annoyed, proud, or simply boggled.<br /><br />After a while of pondering whether to switch the page to a strictly academic, non-controversial format so as to keep it afloat, I decided it has no value to anyone that way. The page will keep on being what it is, but it won't last long like that. More than ever, I encourage you to leave FB altogether, as it's a rather hostile environment for freedom and reason-related ideas.<br /><br />Starting next week, the daily posts will resume, but in a different format. Instead of the usual series of articles, the posts will be more or less equally divided in 3 subjects: philosophical introductions to Objectivist ideas, in preparation for a video-course I'm launching in Brazil; political and economical theory and analyses, which will be plentiful in this crazy post-election world; and expositions of my theory of mind, which has developed greatly since the last series.<br />There will also be one weekly post to answers the questions you guys send me - so keep them coming!!!!! I hope to see more of you guys, for as long as I can keep doing this!!!! <br /><br />You can also follow John Galt Speaking on MeWe (<a href=\"https://mewe.com/p/johngaltspeaking\" target=\"_blank\">https://mewe.com/p/johngaltspeaking</a>), and Flote (<a href=\"https://flote.app/JohnGaltSpeaking\" target=\"_blank\">https://flote.app/JohnGaltSpeaking</a>) - as well as suggesting other platforms I could migrate to!<br /> ",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1171893125858824192",
"published": "2020-11-07T19:24:53+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Hello everyone, it's good to be here!! You might be wondering what this page is, so let me give you a run down.\n \nJohn Galt Speaking is a philosophy page, influenced by, but not constrained by the ideas of Ayn Rand and other Objectivist philosophers. We started out on Facebook, discussing themes that range from theory of mind to economic analysis, until we got banned. Now we came here.\n\nTo make a long story short, Facebook banned the page because it \"could influence american elections\". In other words, the page is nearing 2000 followers, and has now become relevant enough for Facebook to be concerned over its content - and since I'm not an American citizen, my ideas are considered \"foreign intervention in the elections\". I honestly don't know whether to be annoyed, proud, or simply boggled.\n\nAfter a while of pondering whether to switch the page to a strictly academic, non-controversial format so as to keep it afloat, I decided it has no value to anyone that way. The page will keep on being what it is, but it won't last long like that. More than ever, I encourage you to leave FB altogether, as it's a rather hostile environment for freedom and reason-related ideas.\n\nStarting next week, the daily posts will resume, but in a different format. Instead of the usual series of articles, the posts will be more or less equally divided in 3 subjects: philosophical introductions to Objectivist ideas, in preparation for a video-course I'm launching in Brazil; political and economical theory and analyses, which will be plentiful in this crazy post-election world; and expositions of my theory of mind, which has developed greatly since the last series.\nThere will also be one weekly post to answers the questions you guys send me - so keep them coming!!!!! I hope to see more of you guys, for as long as I can keep doing this!!!! \n\nYou can also follow John Galt Speaking on MeWe (https://mewe.com/p/johngaltspeaking), and Flote (https://flote.app/JohnGaltSpeaking) - as well as suggesting other platforms I could migrate to!\n ",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/entities/urn:activity:1171893125858824192/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1167927085482647569/outboxoutbox"
}