Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/26/16 in all areas

  1. Stephen, a long while ago, I meant to address some of your essays on Nietzsche. I read at least half of them, and I found them very useful, but the scope of their content ended up being wider or different than my thread here. By now, I read some more works by Nietzsche, even an obscure one, and I'll get a book soon on lectures he gave about education. Regarding BGE 265, I think you may be overlooking Nietzsche's literary style, which is aimed at exploring, altering, or even denying prior statements. True, he mentions egoism being mixed with the lower sacrificing to the higher, but I think as the book progresses, he becomes aware of the major tension this causes when he talks about how noble souls don't care about other people being subordinate. In Zarathustra, he seems to get at the idea that the absolute most noble souls don't concern themselves with things like being superior to or subordinate to. That would be for people still concerned with morality, not for his new philosophers. The problem for Nietzsche is that he didn't think such noble souls ever existed in totality, and was never clear if they could exist in the future. I don't think he was ever able to resolve whether an ideal the egoist could exist by nature of how he thought human thought worked. The interesting to me is that I think Rand resolved Nietzsche's conflict and explained how heroes really could exist. She accomplishes this by her theory of epistemology, explaining how objectivity is possible in a contextual way.
    1 point
  2. Is that your Avatar speaking? Rational morality isn't suspended during intermissions from flourishing, except by choice. -- Edit: As a fictional aside, Kirk exposed the Kobayashi Maru Test as a cheat because it presents a no-win scenario and invites you to choose your poison. A similar cheat is presented in Ender's Game with The Giant's Drink that Andrew counters (as Kirk did) by refusing to accept a poisoned option. Such scenarios require the subject to accept the corrupt moral premise that a proper test can be conducted by improper controls. In a test delimited to cheating, the best cheater wins.
    1 point
  3. TLD

    Animal rights

    You're talking in non-essentials. Rights can only apply to humans since morality is only needed for humans to survive. Humans have to think to make choices in life to survive; animals act on instinct. So you cannot talk in terms of animals "deserving" to exist. Furthermore, it would be impractical to protect them and for no one to eat them; the ramifications would be enormous. E.g. we would be overrun with them, disease would spread, etc.
    1 point
  4. A Major Objectivist may have interesting answers to this question. Perhaps he is satisfied with the people he communicates with in his walking life. Perhaps online forums don't rate high on his list of priorities. There are a lot of anonymous viewers, a Major Objectivist could just read, and reserve his responses for the content of his next book. (Its funny this idea just gave me the image of a Catholic confessional, where the priest uses the problems of his congregation as fodder for his next sermon) Argument is a valuable development tool. Arguing with someone who doesn't get what you are trying to communicate takes a lot more time than clarifying the issue to yourself because you don't have to investigate the definitions and context that they seem to be missing. Perhaps Major Objectivists have had so many arguments that the arguments repeat themselves and they no longer have the fire to sing the same old song again and again. The key to the problem usually lies in the volition and ability to hold context of the one who doesn't understand (things that cant be taught). Objectivism has been clarified in many books, which also makes certain subjects redundant. What would make an Online forum attractive to a Major Objectivist? Do you wish to interact with Major Objectivists? What would inspire them to interact with you (i.e, what will you trade)? If you were a Major Objectivist what would you be looking for in a forum? You could visit the web sites of Major Objectivists with questions that are of a quality that would inspire the initiation of a dialogue. How would the personal interaction of a Major Objectivist affect the freshman? A few encouraging words from a hero has translated into tremendous volitional incentive for me. But, I knew that I have a lot of growth ahead of me before I can become his peer. I don't want to waste his time until I am ready to inspire him the way he has inspired me. Ayn Rand's books have a great deal of encouragement, the fact that she was alive in this world is an encouragement. One reason I am here is to become worthy of living friends who inspire me the way she does. When I come to that place I may spend more of my time with them in person and in private. I like this perspective, it does seem like Online forums are a kind of stairway for development and affirmation. This brings up a lot of corollary questions in my mind: If a regular member were to become a Major Objectivist would they continue coming here? What kind of organization and commitments of his time is a Major Objectivist engaged in? What is the nature of this Online forum? What is the nature of the members I interact with? What am I looking for; what is the nature of my participation; am I getting out of it what I am putting into it? Where is there room for improvement?
    1 point
  5. JASKN

    Hunger Games Trilogy

    Oh, hah... I totally missed it with her name.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...