Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
  • Objectivism Online Chat

    "How do I know I'm not in the matrix?"

    By mb121,
    OK so my friends "accept" the 3 axioms: 1) Existance exists 2) Concsiousness exists 3) Law of Identity But then say we can't deduce from those that we don't live in the matrix - or to be more direct that "I'm taking an act of faith by trusting my perception." A classic example is when I cross the street because the light is red, I'm acting on faith that my perception and reason were correct that the line was red and no cars would come. They also say there are "other" forms of obtaining knowledge (revalation, the bible), and that just because those 3 axioms are true, it doesn't mean there is knowledge out there that I am incapable of perceiving or reasoning (ie, the existance of God). Thus, let's say that no matter what I will never be able to perceive the existance of God (or deduce him rationally), but he DOES exist. Or, I live in the matrix, but I am incapable of perceiving the matrix or deducing from reason that I am in the matrix, but it DOES exist. What would objectivism have to say about these assertions?

    Global Warming

    Guest Guest_guest_
    By Guest Guest_guest_,
    After reading a recent article in CapMag on the global warming myth I decided to find out some more by reading older articles. That's how I came across the petition project and the scientific research titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". I also watched the video lecture by Dr Arthur Robinson and found it quite amazing. I've also come across the sepp.org website and under "the week that was dec 13th" 4. Letter on Kyoto to Russian president Vladimir Putin, there is a link about collecting signatures which is http://www.envirotruth.org/ president_putin/. I searched the site for some information regarding climate change and came to "Myths and Envirotruth Regarding Climate Change". Myth #1a: 'Computer Models Show Catastrophic Warming in the Future.' shows a graph which can also be found in the scientific research done at the Oregon Institute, but exact slopes differ somewhat. At envirotruth.org From 1979 to 2001 the graphc details the measured temperature trend from satellites and balloons, which begins in 1979 at just over 0.0 and ends in 2001 at a little under 0.2. At Oregon Institute 1979 also begins at 0.0 but ends in 1998 at just below zero. Does anyone know why the graphs differ, have I missed something?

    Reblogged:Friday Hodgepodge

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Notable Commentary

    "Achieving a truly robust, accountable, pro-growth financial system will take more work, but it's off to a good start, especially with the regulatory off-ramp option that puts banks more on the hook for their own risks while allowing them to serve their communities' needs." -- John Allison and Lydia Mashburn, in "Restoring Accountability to the Business of Banking" at The Washington Times.

    "The plain truth is the Palestinian movement never renounced its goal of overthrowing Israel (nor did it ever give a damn about the individual Palestinians it claimed to be avenging)." -- Elan Journo, in "It's Past Time to Bury the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process" at The Times of Israel.

    "Immersed in the 'free speech' culture, I identified a remarkable trait in common among those I admired most: they had both passionate convictions, and a warm, patient, respectful regard for the process by which an individual must acquire meaningful convictions of his own." -- Lisa VanDamme, in "A Lesson for the Classroom from Advocates for Free Speech" at Medium.
    Image via Pixabay. "Let's seek out alternatives instead of sitting in the government-created gridlock of a centrally-planned and regulated transportation system." -- Gus Van Horn, in "Government Shouldn't Be Suing Waze, It Should Emulate It" at RealClear Markets.

    "In the last decade India and China have loosened controls on their citizens and 60 million people have become productive enough to escape from extreme poverty." -- Bob Stubblefield, in "Letter: Best Aid Is Ideas, Not Money" at The Aiken Standard.

    From the Mailbag

    Regarding my latest column, reader R.B. writes:
    Others with an interest in the "private places" of St. Louis and other examples of privately-provided infrastructure can learn more here (and from sources noted within).

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Veganism under Objectivism

    By ⓋObjectivist,
    This is one issue that has left me puzzled when it comes to the objectivists arguments I've heard. An issue that most likely stems from it not being something people in our sphere question often. I'm sure you know by the title but this issue is veganism. More specifically the belief that animals shouldn't be harmed for food, cloathing, entertainment, etc. by HUMANS(I will get to this later) I personally am vegan because I think it comes from objective morality. People like Ayn Rand and Yaron Brook do not. However objectivism has no idols and if I can make a more logical argument that's what matters. Yaron Brook unsurprisingly has the same opinion Ayn Rand had on this topic that is:  I think this is objectively untrue. But to prove that we have to go back to what is reason. Reason is the ability to make logical descisions and not just act on impulse. Unlike plants or rocks or anything else animals have brains and thus we can deductively prove as much as we can prove other humans are sentient animals are also sentient. This is because temperament and damage to the nervous system and brain damages sentience. Therefore plants and other objects don't have sentience. Now sentience is defined as subjective reality meaning that you act not purely on stimuli like how a Venus fly trap does when it closes its mouth but that you can take in information and process it based on many factors such as things previously learned. This itself shows reason because animals don't act purly on instinct like many objectivists say. This is shown with events like elephants revisiting locations other elephants have died, monkeys being taught sign language and with the example of Koko the gorilla who after being taught some sign language independently signed "finger" and "necklace" to describe a ring, or pigs being taught to solve jigsaw puzzles. This shows that these animals can take learned information and apply it in various ways and goes beyond training and instinct. Another argument I frequently hear is that humans don't have instinct. This is untrue for example human babies know to get milk from suckling. so yes an animal can reason because of the fact of it being sentient. From species to species it varies how sentient they are which is heavily linked to how intelligent they are. But objectivism wouldn't be objective if it only applied to one species now would it?  So based on this since an animal can reason you shouldn't kill that animal for the same reason you shouldn't kill a human, it is illogical. But this brings up a very complex issue, that being what about animals that must kill to live? Veganism can be easily applied to humans because we do not need animal products to live. But for example lions do. I have been pondering this issue for a long time and have come to the conclusion that it is neither moral nor immoral. See when we are attacking this question we can't apply a lot of the same reasoning we use on humans because humans unlike some animals have no need to kill. As explained by Ayn Rand:  So we have a situation where it is in the lions self interest to kill and the zebras self interest not to be killed. You might say since the lion is initiating the force it's immoral but then is nature itself immoral? Well unlike a murderer who dosent need to kill to live a lion must kill. Also the lion didn't have any role or control over being in that situation. So surely the lion shouldn't have to die because it was born a carnivore. So I would say this is a lose-lose situation and thus there is no good option. And finally because of this I would say the lion killing isn't moral or immoral but the zebra protecting itself is moral. This is because the zebra didn't put the lion in that situation so it is thus not responsible for the lion having to kill and should act in its own self interest.  I would love to hear everyone's opinion on this.  

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS