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

    What is "Appreciations" relationship to "Value"

    By Veritas,
    If I want to get to the top of a mountain, two possible options are available to me. I can take a helicopter or a can climb it. What is appreciations relationship to value? Does appreciation come necessarily from struggle or from something else? My end goal is to get to the top. From an emotional standpoint will I appreciate being at the top if I do so at the expense of the struggle to get there (there will be a lot of secondary accomplishments ie; muscle growth, a better understanding of climbing) or will I appreciate being at the top simply because I have accomplished my goal. In other words what role does the amount of struggle place in achieving my values? Does struggle enhance the achievement of my goals or is it negligible to the achievement of my goals?   So in a another example, a person that is given enough money (given the have values to sustain it) vs a person that has earned it through hard work....

    Reblogged:The Person Hanging the Sign is Wrong, Too

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    I recommend the "keychain rule," instead. (Image via Pixabay.) Thought experiment: When someone writes Kick Me! on a sheet of paper, and then tapes it to the seat of someone else's pants, who deserves the blame when a third party follows through on the instructions? (a) Only the person who followed the instructions, or (b) that person and the one who posted the sign? If the wrong answer eludes you, consider what you might think about that in an ideal world, when nobody does the kicking. Or, perhaps, just consider the action alone.

    That scenario is what immediately popped into my mind when I got wind of an apology issued by a major airline after one of its ticketing agents couldn't resist the urge to belittle the name of a child whose parent should have considered the ramifications of the non-ethnic, non-literary, non-phonetic, and obviously made-up name she chose for her child. The airline in question immediately (and properly) issued an apology: As the child's mother correctly noted, the child was within earshot of the remarks.

    That said, I think it is wrong to give the mother a pass: she did her child a disservice by, at best, not giving enough thought to what that kind of name would mean for her child: A lifetime of having to (a) tell people how to pronounce it when they see it in print, (b) tell people how to spell it when they hear it, (c) say things like Yes. This really is my name., and (d) yes, fend off ridicule. As do many people with attention-drawing names (myself included during childhood, but unintentionally and for different reasons), the child may indeed end up loving the name. But why do something like this on purpose? Childhood can be challenging enough without a series of unwanted, undeserved, and unchosen confrontations built into the fact that one has to have a name.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    On Tesla and Direct Sales

    By Yes,
    i live in Connecticut.  Like the rest of the nation, Connecticut is a mixed socioeconomic system, that is, blending government control and capitalism.  One aspect of this mixed system that I detest is the ability for state governments to pass legislation which places restrictions on trade.  One such restriction is a law meant to prohibit automobile manufacturers from selling direct to consumers.  Such law was meant to ensure that consumers buy their vehicles through dealerships.  Tesla wants to sell its autos directly to consumers through its company-owned showrooms.  Already,  Tesla has gotten in trouble for selling cars from a gallery in Greenwich.  https://www.courant.com/business/hc-br-judge-rules-against-tesla-in-greenwich-gallery-suit-20181210-story.html The law that caused this ruling goes against the grain of free-market capitalism.  Yet the auto dealers lobby is a strong one, staunchly defending this anti-trade law. So much for the bromide foisted by many right-wingers that America is a capitalist country!

    Necessary Unitariness, Necessary Independence

    If one can only use signs without granting their reality as one can breathe without accepting the reality of air, then the adoption of a metaphysic - usually unstated - is inseparable from any signage, any utterance. But there is a tacit assumption implicit in this analysis: signs are fundamentally means and "metaphysics" concerns the objects of which signs are a potential means to. Is it possible to have a metaphysic which does not answer to the above characterization? I have thought and come up with only two ways to deny the intrinsic, other-oriented aspect of a sign: 1. You outright deny any distance between mind and reality; sign is being. 2. You deny the possibility of a sign ever having worldly friction. A means which is by nature estranged from its intended object is no means at all. Both of these seem to me easily susceptible to self-contradiction. In "1", the identity espoused obliterates any meaningful distinction between "is" and "is not", for both predicates sign and are composed of signs. One could argue against this by stipulating that the form of self-contradiction is itself a sign, leaving the original thesis unscathed. This is where recourse to a reality that is a one and only - to the Objectivist axiom of existence and Parmenides' principles that "what is is" - is necessary. Insistence on the actual reality of what is not can only be met with the injunction "A is A". In "2", the self (and performative) contradiction is more obvious; its truth demands that it be false. One could argue against this by distancing truth from correspondence but even on a wholly "wholistic" or "coherentist" scheme there is inevitable recourse to a correspondence between the whole's parts in their even generating a shared context whereby difference is potentially coherence as opposed to simply *other*. The very idea of saying something right about the world seems to unconditionally presuppose the metaphysical independence of mind and world as well as the necessary contact of the former with the latter in *coming to be* lest we become - among other things - totally incapable of distinguishing between categories of mere assertion and truth, of meaningfully parsing our signs whatsoever. Every anti-realist doctrine is by nature parasitic. Only where realism gives its ideological opponents purchase does its axiomatic status seem to shake. The mind and the world are related (and not as identical phenomena or synonyms) by metaphysical necessity, and they are independent of one another also - by metaphysical necessity. We are not moving from the unintelligibility of contradiction as the form of any claim to something existent to then the doctrine of realism, but from the self-evident unreality of metaphysical contradiction - of the mind being in the world and the world not in the mind - to the admission (not the proof) of realism. To know the world and to know the world is not my knowing - or constituted solely by it - is an axiom, and a first principle not only of scientific demonstration, but of cognition generally.

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