Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. In light of having segued down the theory-practice dichotomy, it seemed prudent to go back and reconsider the evidence. From what was quoted, the source and fuller extent was: As to this last: "In 1934, she wrote a letter to thank an actor she did not know, whose performance onstage "gave me, for a few hours, a spark of what man could be, but isn't .... The word heroic does not quite express what I mean." You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. There is nothing to approach the sanctity of the highest type of man possible and there is nothing that gives me the same reverent feeling, the feeling when one’s spirit wants to kneel, bareheaded. Do not call it hero-worship, because it is more than that. It is a kind of strange and improbable white heat where admiration becomes religion, and religion becomes philosophy, and philosophy — the whole of one’s life. Admiration is a subset of religion, religion a subset of philosophy, and philosophy the subsumption of one's life. To Ayn Rand, philosophy was religion, the “whole” of her life .... This would be an inversion of the relationship between philosophy and religion, and a subsequent insertion of that inversion as the whole of her life. In his next paragraph he compounds his error. It seems Rand venerated the anima mundi behind the innovators advancing the Industrial Revolution yet she failed to properly attribute the prior and supplemental influence underlying the European Renaissance and Protestant Reformation; as well as the previous contributions of instrumental men of faith, like Isaac Newton, to its outgrowth. What Miss Rand venerated was the fact that the innovators advanced the Industrial Revolution, not because of faith. Such men were instrumental in spite their faith, paying homage to reason, where reason was due. In the church I attended while growing up, the minister admonished the "Sunday Christians" who would put their "Sunday" face on to attend church, but Monday morning, resumed their swearing, drinking, and rubbing elbows with their fellow man. In his exhortation that "Rand fails to recognize the prime mover", the author implicitly counts on his audience's familiarity with Aristotle and knowledge of Rand's familiarity with the same, to undermine a "morality inherent to the natural world." The implication is that morality stems from a creator. The Objective Standard recently published an article entitled Secular, Objective Morality: Look and See. The author, Craig Biddle steps through how morality is inherent in the facts identified by looking out and seeing the natural world at our disposal. And on this note, I still stand by my identification of "those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting other corners" conclusion. So in conclusion, it was not the theory-practice dichotomy here, rather it was the gulf that separated faith and reason that the bridge constructed failed to divide.
  3. Yesterday
  4. . The Political Economy of Public Debt - Three Centuries of Theory and Evidence Richard M. Salsman (2017)
  5. . The strings of the harp return to silence. That is so not only for each individual, but for the species, and eventually for all life in the solar system, and eventually farther, for all life-organization and intelligence-organization in the universe. Stardust to stardust. “When we are here, death is not come. When death is come, we are not here.” –Lucretius Taking a third-person perspective on oneself, one can be in advance conscious of one’s death, one’s full stop. In the first-person perspective, full ending of any object of consciousness whatsoever is collapse of both together, conscious process and object. I like better the third-person perspective, which is the only perspective with real interest for one's endpoint. Value is here on this earth beyond one's own life. Look to here and to the tomorrows of here all through one’s own last look at all.
  6. And yet, you expend a great deal your creative energy (and time) making a pointless argument. Obviously, you hold metaphysical convictions that conflict with Objectivism. Ayn Rand did not contradict herself. If you watch the Tom Snyder interview to the end, she uses a religious reference in closing: "God bless America." Immediately prior to that statement, she clarifies her use of the term, God, as meaning: all that is good. Clearly, she did not always express herself literally, although she seems to be very conscientious of her choice of words. There is no "perhaps" in regard to Ayn Rand's convictions. As a person of independent thought, you may interpret information, perceptions, sensations, or the random fulfillment of wishes any way you so desire, but that does not make your interpretations matters of fact. Selling a house or making a financial contract may very well be creative, but it is not art. Not by Objectivist definition. You could say that there is an art to installing PVC piping, or landing an airplane, or folding your laundry. You could say that there is an art to picking pockets, or picking up a one-night-stand date, or stacking a deck of cards. The creative process is certainly applied to all of these examples. Some require human intuition. But it's not art. And you can say that it is, just as you could say: A is non-A. But merely saying so doesn't make it a matter of fact. So, in response to your statement: "you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do," you are certainly correct. Objectivists require facts and evidence to support their interpretations. The distinction between your perception of reality, from the Objectivist understanding of reality, is defined as: the Primacy of Consciousness, versus, the Primacy of Existence. If you have any further interest in the works of Ayn Rand, you may do your own research. But it seems to me that that would be as much a waste of your time, as you have stated that you believe in a multitude of "existences" and that all metaphysical interpretations are mere speculation. Score one for Immanuel Kant.
  7. From ITOE: From the dictionary definition: Why does there exist an expression about 'rolling out the red carpet'? Why not a bluish-green carpet, or some other color? Why does it have to be read[sic?] There seems to be some difficulty bending the first AR quote into the same shape of the provided dictionary definition. You have presented Pragmatism quite accurately. So has the Lexicon.
  8. Google tells me that Rand used this phrase often throughout her life, and you can watch her say it in one of the old interviews where she's wearing blue. So, use Google. But, it's outrageous to think she was acknowledging a supernatural existence. It would be like believing one of those spliced clip videos that has Obama "saying" random nonsense. Rand probably liked the phrase *because* it seemed to go against her views at first. It got people thinking.
  9. LOL, you're using a whole paragraph of standard rhetorical logic to say that logic of that type is bull, and your faith trumps it If that were true, what's there to talk about? Your views are your faith and mine are mine, and sharing views is purely academic interest, of no real value.
  10. I agree, but thinking isn't separate from the body. (Rand would agree with me, here are some examples) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/soul-body_dichotomy.html She didn't, I checked. You misremembered. I'm trying to be helpful. Sure, so I'm telling you what's different and why you are mistaken at least on Rand's thoughts. What she did say was based on a poetic phrase, and her elaborations in other interviews shows she was always careful to say that religious type quotes she mentions are meant in metaphorical way. You may interpret the words how you want or find different value in the words she said, but it's not what she meant.
  11. Whether I've presented Pragmatism accurately, or the Lexicon entry has, is something you will have to validate for yourself.
  12. Miss Rand considered the word "selfishness" worthwhile to use, even though it tended to antagonize folk. Is the dictionary definition likely to reclaim the term from the observations that led to the lexicon's entry of pragmatism? Is citing portions of Rand that can be bent to support some points while disregarding portions that tend not to a pragmatic approach?
  13. Your first paragraph shows me you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do. As an artist, it is easier for me to grasp that concept because it starts in my mind and because I have a body, it gives me the ability to create that vision into existence. It is a challenge because it is dimensional art that is sometimes difficult to assemble. But that is not limited to tangible art. My friend in real estate considers herself to be an artist when she gets creative with financing to put a workable deal together to help put a client in a house they want. Without thinking, it does not materialize. Rand DID say "I do not die" you interpret it one way, I another. I like Rand but I have my own brain so if it is not in align with your interpretation of what she said, so be it. As you can tell from one clip, most of the audience did not think the one gal was rude to Rand, but I picked it up immediately. It was a slam to Rand, the way she said it. I did not even have to think about it, yet they were outraged that she came to that conclusion. It just shows how people think in different ways. You may understand one concept that I may not, and the same applies to some concepts I understand but are foreign to you. Much like the embryo that finally passes through the birth canal, and due to the pain, blood, etc., they probably think they are dying till they actually enter this phase of existence. I believe it is much like that for us as we discard this body that helps us carry out our choices/thoughts in life, we pass on to a new existence which NO ONE can say yay or nay because we have NOT experienced that phase. We can speculate all we want but until we go through the process of leaving this body that encumbers us, none of us know for sure. We can say "perhaps" to one another. No point in arguing.
  14. Last week
  15. That you can create does not mean that there is a creator of the universe, or even just a creator of man. Creating an idea totally different than consciously making reality itself, or establishing existence. You seem to be a little unsure about Rand thinks about knowledge, and about a spirit or soul. She speaks of a spirit metaphorically. She focuses on how you live your life. There's no soul, in her view, that goes past your body or lives on. So if/when she says "I do not die, my body does" she'd mean that she'd have no way to know she died; she would not be conscious, as if she simply went to sleep. But I don't think she said the words you remember. I checked the Mike Wallace and Donahue interviews. The actual quote you are looking for is in the video posted earlier.
  16. You are using the term "pragmatic" incorrectly (the dictionary definition) as I noted in the above post (and re-quote below). If a person only looked up the term "objective" in the dictionary would that mean he understands Objectivism? No, of course not. So it would be non-sequitur for that person to then ask you to explain, "How would an 'Objectivist Utilitarian' approach such and such." A strong case can be made that Objectivist Epistemology was very much influenced by James' 1890 monumental work, The Principles of Psychology -- if not so much the finer points of his philosophy, Pragmatism. It's no accident that the ITOE just happens to contain the above reference.
  17. Think (remember thoughts ARE creative) about what you are saying. You diss something you are unable to understand. I view it as common sense. Your idea of logic is NOT logical to me. The human body and how it works is proof, to me, of an intelligent designer. Many scientists agree, especially with all the new information they are learning. My husband is very scientific and he believes in God, but we still believe somewhat different spiritually. Much of life is a mystery and someone like you who is so black and white is not capable of breaking through your barriers, so you become arrogant in your stance. It would serve you well to learn to say, "perhaps." Maybe someday you will have a breakthrough if you learn to not be so rigid. I am a big Ayn Rand fan, but she did have some contradictive thoughts. I do have to find the clip where she talked about "she" did not die but her body does. I think it was with Mike Wallace. If you have any desire to learn the stance of scientists that DO accept a Higher Power, there are plenty of videos where they express their views and why they believe.
  18. Are you claiming the term "useful" is not affected by the different standards in ethics, such as utilitarianism - greatest "good" for the greatest number of people versus rational egoism? How would a pragmatic Utilitarian approach a political and/or ethical question versus a so called "pragmatic" Objectivist or rational egoist? Aren't the approaches radically different? I would say yes, and one is based on subjective aims, based on a subjective morality.
  19. What are your thoughts on the "Menace of Pragmatism" article of the Objective Standard?
  20. The term Pragmatism was coined by C.S. Peirce in 1878 from the same Greek word that we get the words "practical" and "practice." If all you ever do is look up the word "pragmatic" in the dictionary you will get the following type of definition: "Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations." The term "useful" in James' quote means to "physically put an idea to work in practice, in reality." For both Rand and James' this is the only purpose of knowledge and it is by putting our ideas to work, whether building bridges or governments, that we validate them. With regards to what is in bold above, "subjective ideas" do not exist. Or to be more precise, they only exist as figments in your mind and their flaws become apparent once you try to put them to work in practice. Subjective ideas are only ever an option so long as you choose to never act on them. From p. 1 of the ITOE: "All knowledge is in terms of concepts. If these concepts correspond to something that is to be found in reality they are real and man's knowledge has a foundation in fact; if they do not correspond to anything in reality they are not real and man's knowledge is of mere figments of his own imagination." (Edward C. Moore, Amercian Pragmatism: Peirce, James, & Dewey, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, p. 27.) This also applies to normative concepts. Think of it this way. You can say of our idea "Capitalism" that it is moral because it is useful (works) or that it is useful (works) because it is moral. Both of these phrases mean exactly the same thing. - New Buddha Even after it became apparent to the Socialists that Socialism does not "work" it's continued justification by them was changed to something like, "While Socialism doesn't work as well as Capitalism, it is morally superior to Capitalism." The Rationalism which lies at the root of Socialism allows for such contradictions to exist. Reality does not. There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical.
  21. The closest we can get with our version of the forum software is to have the chat show up in something else that already has its own page, such as the Portal area.
  22. This is correct. Now we see in full clarity the contrast between Rand and James, it is no less than the stark difference between "fact of reality" (which is absolute, metaphysical, objective) versus "useful" (which is arbitrary and almost always subjective: useful to whom and for what? by what standard? according to what ethics based on "the good" according to what standard?)
  23. 1. Don't care so much about what others think or do. 2. Understand and own yourself and know your boundaries. Unless the person says something about you, and not just about himself, you are completely free to let him pretend any fiction he cares to. Choose not be bossed around.. you don't need to boss anyone else around. 3. Gain some self esteem so that you don't feel that you "wanna be the manly dominant guy". Wanting to be that sort of person reveals errors in judgment and a severe lack of self-esteem. (these are linked also to various irrationalities and a malformed ethics) a. ask yourself if you are really impressed with bossy people like that b. ask yourself if you really respect and admire other people who are primarily impressed with people like that c. ask yourself if you really want to form friendships and relationships with those other people 4. That's not luck. You need to be confident, not in a brash disconnected from reality way, but in a true unshakable understanding of reality way. If you can beat the guy 8 out of ten times, you know you are "better". If another guy can beat you 8 out of 10 times you know that another guy is better. You should be confident in the first case you will win and equally confident in the second case you will lose. Be proud of what you can do, what you have accomplished, but seek to do better. Fight the second guy more often than the first, you gain nothing from fighting the first, you will learn and get better from fighting the second. 5. Being bossy is not being a better man, its just being bossy. If someone says to you "Go get me a beer" you can either get pissy and "Go fck yrself" or you can shrug it off, smile say "nope" or say nothing. He has no business telling you what to do. When you are in a crowd of adult children (as if seems to be the case of the crowd you are running with) be the better man not just another one of the children. Really self-esteem, maturity, and objectivity are the answers to all your "problems"... and perhaps finding and choosing good people to be your friends.
  24. I would like to argue the opposite. I think that Kantian scholars idealize Kant and thus misinterpret and misunderstand Kant just as Harriman idealized and thus misinterpreted and misunderstood Aristotle. Here is a passage from SEP on Hermann Cohen (sec. 10): In contrast to what this 'majority' believes, Kant was only interested in mind and is today supported by some psychological evidence.
  25. Notable Commentary "Notice there is not one grievance against the king for not providing for the 'needs of the people.'" -- Talbot Manvel, in "Declaration of Independence Joined Morality and Law" at The Capital Gazette. "f you want a condensed version of events ..." -- Paul Hsieh, in "Charlie Gard Case, Summarized in 30 Words" at Forbes. "n Pennsylvania[,] a bill being considered in the state legislature seeks to force insurance companies to pay for [unproven and ineffective] therapies [for post-Lyme disease syndrome] -- against [their] scientific and business judgement." -- Amesh Adalja, in "Will Pennsylvania Proposal Sanction Improper Treatment of Lyme Disease?" (June) at Contagion Live. "Key behaviors of investors today show eerie parallels: a desire to bid on dollars with their assets, a refusal to support the gold standard, and even a belief that the dollar is money." -- Keith Weiner, in "Stockholm Syndrome -- Precious Metals Supply and Demand" at SNB & CHF. "Beyond these similarities between patents and estate interests, there are other doctrines that define the boundaries of an estate without reference to either fences or the physical invasion that constitutes a trespass." -- Adam Mossoff, in "The Trespass Fallacy in Patent Law" (PDF, 2012) in The Florida Law Review, vol. 65, no. 6. -- CAV Link to Original
  26. Well I was just giving an example, I wasn't talking about love and sex exclusively. For the lack of a better example I'll say the exact situation I was in. I am at a martial arts gym and I'm the best there. I mean, by far the best, so I'm sort of the dominant presence there, and obviously I like it. But then there comes this cocky 5 ft 7 guy with an attitude and starts playing boss with everybody around, including myself. I didn't like it so I challenged him to sparring and I kind of schooled him, so he didn't have anything to say anymore. Of course, in this case I was lucky because I was better than him at what we were doing, but if not for that sparring match, he would've still been an arrogant prick, so I was wondering whether or not in such cases the right attitude can fix the problem. Like, when someone tries to play the big boss around you, how should you act to establish the role of the better man?
  27. "Aristotle’s secularism and advocacy of reason". Aristotle's believed in the Prime Mover (i.e. God) and had his entire metaphysics depend on Him. He also believed in the heart as the seat of the soul. Aristotle believed in the importance of emotions in his rhetoric. He also was no rationalist but accepted both the role of reason and empirical data in inferences (see, e.g. "Introduction" to Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics by W. D. Ross, Oxford UP, 1957).
  1. Load more activity