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 Would A Rational Personal Interpret this short Tupac Line?

    dadmonson
    By dadmonson,
    I can't make full sense of this quote but I like it for some reason...  I'm looking for an interpretation that would sound rational even if it wasn't intended to be that way Tupac says, "Though things change, the future's still inside of me" What could he mean by, "The future's still inside of me"? Here is the context of the quote: In this game, the lesson's in your eyes to see
    Though things change, the future's still inside of me
    We must remember that tomorrow comes after the dark
    So you will always be in my heart, with unconditional love
    In this game, the lesson's in your eyes to see
    Though things change, the future's still inside of me
    We must remember that tomorrow comes after the dark   Again, I'm looking for an interpretation that would sound rational even if it wasn't intended to be that way   Radiohead also said something similar:  "The future is inside us
    It's not somewhere else"

    Reblogged:Restaurateurs a Free Lunch: Yours

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    The municipalities of Silicon Valley have decided to stop letting tech companies offer their own employees free lunches in any new facilities they build. Demonstrating complete ignorance of both why people run businesses and the purpose of government, the executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association explains why she supports such government meddling:
    Image via Unsplash. Whatever one might think of "social engineering", it doesn't hold a candle to the central planning Borden seems so fond of: At least these employers aren't threatening anyone with fines or imprisonment for participating in a particular kind of lunch arrangement. Government is supposed to protect freedom for everyone, making it possible for them to run a business or pursue any other activity that does not harm anyone else. By forcing "employees to leave the building" for a decent lunch, these laws are interfering with how many individuals plan their days. This will probably cause many to work less efficiently -- or stay at work later than they'd like, and perhaps eat out with their families less often during the week ... incidentally harming other restaurants. But that's beside the point. It's wrong to unleash the government on non-criminals for whatever purpose, no matter how kind one's stated intentions.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Re-blogged post:Eros and Ethos – 6 Month Retrospective

    Jason Stotts
    By Jason Stotts,
    by Jason Stotts It’s now been just over 6 months since Eros and Ethos: A New Theory of Sexual Ethics came out! I am happy to report that so far the book is selling well and the reviews have been good. To date, we are just shy of our 200th copy! Currently, most people are buying ebooks (75%), with the rest of the sales being paperbacks. Moreover, the reviews have been really wonderful with a score of 4.5 out of 5 and 13 reviews (the overall score was brought down by 1 negative and unsubstantial review). Here are just a couple of the really nice things people are saying: “Get ready for the first part of a very thoughtful and enlightening ride. I can’t wait for the next installment to arrive!” “I was raised in a sex shaming household, and it is very difficult to live with conflicting thoughts about my own sexuality, desires, and societal pressures. This book is imperative for anyone struggling to reconcile their sexuality with morality.” “This is an important book for anyone seeking a rational approach to sex” “This was a fantastic book, an excellent purchase, and well worth my time.” “This is a vastly important (and possibly life-changing) book for anyone floundering and/or seeking growth and happiness within a romantic/erotic relationship.” “I’ve never read anything related to the topic of sex that addresses the subject so thoroughly, so positively, or so helpfully.” “Bottom line, an excellent addition to my library. Suitable for academics and laymen alike.” Go take a look at the full comments yourself, they’re amazingly kind and speak highly of the book. The audiobook has been delayed due to production issues, but I hope to find a new narrator soon (if you’re interested, let me know). No current ETA on the audiobook, but I’ll be sure to announce it when there’s something more definite. Overall, I’ve very happy with the launch and I hope that the sales keep climbing as new people read the book and recommend it to their friends. If you’ve already read the book, please take a second to leave a review, it makes a big difference and I love seeing them. Link to Original

    Reblogged:Immigration and Apportionment

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Over at the Manhattan Contrarian is a connection I've never seen made in the immigration debate -- between immigration and the distribution of congressional seats among states with more vs. fewer immigrants:
    In my own thinking about immigration, I have long advocated reform of the process by which immigrants can become citizens. Should we also rethink how we apportion representation? It might help to consider the hypothetical situation of this "bump" being in support of whichever party you find most congenial to America's best interests. I haven't thought for long about the issue, so won't offer an opinion on it now.

    Having said that, I do find it worthwhile to recall something frequently missing from conversations about immigration. As I noted some time ago:
    The "freeloading" problem is one created by improper government rather than immigration. Likewise, the importance of apportioning our representation precisely might be less important were our government confined to its proper scope, leaving us less at the mercy of Democrats wanting to put their hands on our wallets, not to mention Republicans wanting to put their hands in our pants. In such a context, the strongest case I can imagine for representation reform along the lines the first quote suggests would be: Large numbers of immigrants in some area might sway voters one way or another on a foreign policy issue pertinent to an election. But I can see such an effect going either way, so even that case seems difficult to make.

    -- CAVLink to Original

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