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.

  • °

    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"

    American Revolution

    By qpwoeiru,
    I want to learn about the events leading up to and following the American Revolution, but I realize history is an iffy subject and by leaving out some things and over-stressing others, an author can cause someone to have a completely distorted view of what happened. Anyone have any suggestions of good books to go with?

    Rational vs Irrational & Nonrational freedom...

    By StrictlyLogical,
    A.  Concepts "Rational" and "Irrational", what is the domain of their proper application? Are they strictly applicable to a process of thought?  Generally to the thoughts themselves (not the process)?  Are choices irrational or rational or are they only based on reasons which are rational or irrational?  Can actions be characterized as rational or irrational?  A combination of the above?   B.  The concept "arational" or "nonrational" valid?  Is there a territory between rational and irrational ? (i.e. is it required that something be contrary to rationality to qualify as irrational or merely absent rationality, is there a distinction between that which contradicts rational thought and that which is merely absent of it?)   C.  The arational or nonational within the bounds of the rational.  If "rational" is applied to broadly to more than a thought process, e.g. a rational action, then in the space of all action, there are acts which when informed by rationality are rational.  Within the limits of rationality there are arbitrary choices which can be made... the aspect within the rational which is arational or nonrational ... is it irrational or simply nonrational/arational?  e.g. drinking milk may be an eminently rational action (in context), doing so while also adding perfectly harmless food coloring, or specifically drinking it from a particularly odd looking glass do not make the overall action irrational but exhibit a nonrational whim within rational actions... i.e. the act itself of "adding food coloring" or "using a weird glass" are not in themselves rational but are within the rational action to drink milk... what do we call this space of action/choice?  or Should we sweep the question aside by technically restricting rational/ irrational distinction to the process of thought?   D.  Would attempting to categorize everything as rational or irrational reveal a sort of error of conceptualization and a psychosis or obsession?

    Ronald Reagan

    Asker of Questions
    By Asker of Questions,
    Leftists frequently cite Reagan as a paragon of "conservativism," by which they implicitly mean small government, low taxes, and free market ideology. Being too young to remember his Presidency, what facts support or repudiate this association? All I know about him is that he is actually the one who signed EMTALA into law—some free market guy.

    Reblogged:Corbett on That Laptop Ban

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    In case you were wondering about the strangely circumscribed ban on large electronics from certain Middle-Eastern airports that was abruptly announced in March, wonder no more. Jon Corbett, writing at Professional Troublemakerexplains that the ban was in reaction to compromised scanning equipment. From Corbett's closing summary:
    This should come as no surprise from a government that will not openly name our enemy, much less declare war, and is now hoping to "make a deal" with some of our enemies, as if nobody has had (or tried) that idea at any point over the past few decades. (This is not to say it was ever a good idea in the first place.)

    That said, if you have the time to read the article about the laptop ban, note the author's three arguments about its impracticality, and consider how similar they sound to any Republican's protests to the effect that any standard left-wing economic measure is "impractical". However true and well-researched such points may be, they will hold no water for supporters, because they are not motivated by practicality. They are motivated by a demonstrably incorrect morality that conflictswith the requirements for life on this earth. (For what it's worth, all three of Corbett's points immediately occurred to me when I first heard about the ban.)

    -- CAV Link to Original

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