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

    Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    Easy Truth
    By Easy Truth,
    I am trying to understand ... The idea of asteroids acting like billiard balls under collisions is the "efficient cause" conception of causation, and Objectivism has a better approach.  It seems the approach is the answer to the question "why" in a restricted way. The ball is rolling.   Let us say Billard Ball A was moving and collided with Ball B. A change in some of the balls' attributes, its position and particular changes in its appearance as it is changing its location. Are the two billiard balls considered an entity? Is the system, the who billiards table the entity?
    Is an action colliding?
    Is an action being hit? I am trying to find out how to explain, using Objectivist terminology, why did ball B move when it was hit by ball A?
    Was ball A, the cause of the motion of ball B? Is the connection seen between ball A's motion and ball B's motion purely inductive? That ball A's motion did not cause ball B's motion? Another example ... My car is not running, the mechanic might say that the wearing out of a part caused it to die. Here is a an action causing an action "wearing out" and "dying". Most people would understand that explanation. We can object and say what was the entity that wore out and he will say the alternator. And we can correct him by saying that we have to change the attributes in the alternator to fix the car. Is that correct? He will say we will cause the car to run by fixing it. So fixing it will be the cause of the car running. Two actions "fixing" and "running". I am just trying to learn, how would you show causality in the objectivist way?  
     

    Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Kenny Davis
    By Kenny Davis,
    Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete. How can this be the case? 

     "they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists." Seems to be saying that man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists, doesn't exist.   This is so strange that feel like I'm missing something. 

    White Supremacist Protest Violence

    gregory kalian
    By gregory kalian,
    A federal judge ruled the "supremacists" had a right to protest.  It seems the reason violence occurred is because "counter protesters" gathered in an effort to block the lawful expression of free speech. Notwithstanding the murderous act of one individual who drove his vehicle into the crowd, is there a reasonable basis to blame the supremacists for the violence? I understand their position is objectionable, however the true value of the right to free speech is for the protection of speech some may consider objectionable. How is the action of the counter protesters different from recent incidents of students and others shouting down campus  speakers and denying them their right to speak?  I have not heard a single sole blame the counter protesters. If the supremacists had been left unmolested to merrily or perhaps nastily carry out their demonstration and go home, would any of this have happened? Many people believe abortion is murder. They consider abortion to be an abhorrent and evil act against the most innocent and defenseless. In a word, some consider abortion to be objectionable.  If a "woman's march" or other "choice" protest were met by an armed and angry mob bent on the disruption of their free expression and clashes occurred, would we blame the freedom of choice people for perpetrating the violence?

    Right-Wing Collectivism

    2046
    By 2046,
      Jeffrey Tucker has a new book coming out that is intended to trace the origins of the alt-right in what he terms (following Mises) as right-Hegelians. There is a preview article up at FEE as well that I recommend to anyone interested: https://fee.org/articles/a-rogues-gallery-of-right-hegelians/ Also you can find Mises' study of Nazism Omnipotent Government online in PDF and as an audiobook up on YT, it makes a good companion piece to Ominous Parallels and DIM Hypothesis.

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