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

    Mirror (objectivism task)

    lumusislight
    By lumusislight,
    Hey guys, Not sure if this question is ok here, but need your advice. I have to make up a task for the Objectivism course and I've an idea. I was thinking about a picture of a person looking in the mirror. And then the question will be about the reasons the author chose to use the mirror in the scene. But it seems to be too obvious.. I mean wouldn't it be better to use the image of a person who is heading to the mirror which is not visible to us (I've seen such a picture, but can't find it now)? Sorry for such a messy explanation... Hope you understand what I mean. The task should be a difficult one, and it should also ignite a discussion in groups. Any help is appreciated. Thanks,   Lumusislight

    Reblogged:We All Lost, ...

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    ... but the More Important Battle Was Won

    The good news and the bad news is that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court over the weekend. The very bad news is that the change in the composition of the court puts in danger continued federal protection of women's reproductive rights.

    The worst news is that the Democrats, who (I thought) favor continuing protecting those rights, abandoned the moral high ground that came with that position. Instead of articulating this concern and making a solid case to their Republican colleagues and the American people in favor of the right to an abortion, they chose the desperate tactics of character assassination and delay. As Robert Tracinski of The Federalist argued, this created a situation in which the hearings became about something even more fundamental than our government's inconsistent protection of all individual rights:
    This reminds me of the remarks Senator Susan Collins of Maine made -- a Republican who might have been persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh -- regarding her decision to cast a vote for confirmation. At least the GOP had enough backbone to not allow that very dangerous precedent to be set.

    That said, the Democrats not only made a major contribution to the serious recent deterioration of our political discourse, they even further set their own cause back with this display.
    What went missing when we needed it most. (Image via Pixabay.) When a setback to a just cause appears inevitable -- as when a Republican President gets to replace a more secular judge with a more religious one -- it is time to make a moral case for that cause in as clear a manner as possible. (Within the hearings opportunities to do this might be limited, but they aren't nonexistent.) This makes it clear to voters and any persuadable politicians that what is about to happen is wrong, and could perhaps cause defections. At worst, it makes it easier to appeal to voters, say in future elections, why they should not vote for theocrats. Or it can help build support for what we really need, which is a change in the law to make abortion legal. This was a very serious issue, and what did we get instead? Nonstop dissection of a frat boy's high school antics and a grasping-at-straws that was obvious to anyone on the other side of the nomination debate and, more important, to anyone who was undecided for any reason.

    I usually find myself appalled by the GOP's cowardice in standing up for those issues they should be proudly supporting, rather than trying to sneak in or even only pretending to support in order to get votes at election time. But this takes the cake. The Democrats' vicious attacks on Kavanaugh were simultaneously dangerous attacks on the very foundation of our republic -- and at a time when they should have been standing up for a woman's ownership of her own body. That the latter is now collateral damage of the first really says something.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    How to analyze one's music taste?

    Cabbage-and-Kings
    By Cabbage-and-Kings,
    I have become more interested in the topic of aesthetics after reading Aristotle's Poetics, and am now planning on reading Rand's The Romantic Manifesto. Naturally, I have also begun to wonder how I can apply what I am learning about the nature of aesthetics to my own life, and what my own aesthetic taste (particularly music taste) says about myself. In other words, how does one discover their "sense of life"? To give you an idea of my own music taste, I have always liked Brahms's and Prokofiev's music; there is something about their powerful melodies, lush orchestration, and subtle darkness in them that is appealing to me. In terms of "modern music", I have a liking for progressive metal and rock because of the cathartic effect that it has, but I still prefer romantic/classical music. Being a newbie here, I am curious to see what advice you all might have in terms of personal aesthetic analysis.

    Primacy of Conciousness vs. the Problem of Conciousness

    Richard H.
    By Richard H.,
    One of my friends (a theist), sent me this link after a friendly debate we had. After watching the video, I think that there is something deeply wrong about Wheeler's metaphysical view of reality. I cannot quite place my finger on it, but he seems to be conflating the fact of consciousness existing and the primacy of consciousness. How would you respond to this viewpoint in a debate? https://www.facebook.com/truthmefree/videos/nathan-wheeler-responds-to-the-question-how-do-you-respond-to-athiest-that-say-t/2070584699820137/  

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