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

    Reblogged:Rude and Concerned Are Not Synonyms

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    For better or worse, there is often a time delay for me when it comes to processing ridiculous and unexpected insults. A good example of this came during our recent family vacation, which included taking the kids to Disney World for a few days. Having gotten up later than we wanted for a scheduled event, we rushed to the park. Just after, I saw an opportunity to buy everyone breakfast while my wife stood in line with the kids for a ride. After my kids (aged seven and five) and I got a place in line, my wife joined us. So I headed out the building to get breakfast. No more than a yard or two from the building, two young adult females with technicolor dreadlocks accosted me, asking me where my children were. Assuming them to be park employees of some kind, I said, "Oh, they're with my wife."
    Yeah. That's me around the thirty- and sixty-second marks. "We're concerned that you're leaving them in line by themselves," one of them said somewhat brusquely. Thinking something was odd, but being in a hurry, I simply left for the coffee shop. Only at some point on the way did I realize that these two were almost certainly busybodies, rather than park employees, and that the answer they really deserved was something like a perfunctory, "That's rude."

    I am not a threatening-looking person. My kids are healthy and clean, and were dressed for the occasion. I wasn't yelling at my kids. They weren't crying or screaming. The only reason whatsoever I can come up with for any concern by an onlooker is that they saw me enter with my kids and leave without them -- a sight that anyone with a grain of sense would realize is not some rare phenomenon at an amusement park. I am sure plenty of other parents hand off their kids to the other parent, or even their older siblings, other relatives, or friends.

    A clean-cut, ordinary-looking man taking his kids to a line and leaving a few minutes later signals abandonment ... exactly how? And did this duo -- whose demeanor would give me pause about trusting my kids with them, to say the least -- spend any time enjoying the park? Did they worry themselves sick by appointing themselves guardians of every child in sight? Do they enjoy provoking parents? I don't know or care. But their assumption that I would skip out on my own young children in a crowded amusement park was either clueless enough or rude enough to merit an etiquette citation rather than an answer.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Fallacy of Logical Omniscience

    By Eiuol,
    The error I'm picturing is related to the problem of logical omniscience in the subfield of epistemic logic. It's not a problem as much as an implication that leads to some really unreasonable ends. Here's a quick explanation of how I'm formulating the problem that is ultimately an error of thought as opposed to an unsound argument. A -> B Straightforward. If a ball is pushed, it will roll. This is a fact. K(A) -> K(B) If I know that a ball is pushed, I know that it will roll. (K = knowledge that) In other words: K(A) -> K(A -> B  ) So if I know that a ball is pushed, I know that pushed balls roll. On some level, this makes sense. How can I claim that I know about pushed balls if I don't also know that they roll? If I know that a ball is pushed, then I should know it will roll. But this leads to problems fast if knowledge always requires knowing implications. A rolling ball follows principles of motion, for example. If I know a ball is pushed, I'd be expected to know Newtonian physics. That would mean no one would know about balls until learning Newtonian physics. The problem grows bigger when I say all knowledge is connected. I'd need to know all of the implications of Newtonian physics to say I know Newtonian physics. This form of thinking would require that I need to know everything in order to know anything. This problem seems to arise a lot when talking about implications of ideas (this happens in many contexts). What I mean is when taking someone's idea, then talking about the implications, especially implications not yet considered by them. Sometimes, people take this as a strawman argument. But if we don't accept logical omniscience, it's not a strawman argument, it just means they don't yet know the implication is true. To say how egalitarianism ruins individuality doesn't always mean an egalitarian seeks to make all people the same. (Consider how people sometimes insist Rand exaggerates and hyperbolizes about altruism, when mainly that's a case of ideas taken to their logical end.) Other times, the person claiming an implication thinks the other person should know the implication, meaning that not knowing is due to evasion. If we reject logical omniscience, then no, failure to notice is not always evasion. It may take time for people to sort through or reorganize knowledge to be able to honestly accept an implication. This is similar to being called "too stubborn" for taking the time to consider the idea. I'm curious about other ideas. When is a person morally blameworthy for not accepting an implication as true? 

    Rare moment ... a glimpse of a moral artist

    By StrictlyLogical,
    This brought a HUGE smile to my face and shocked me a bit at the same time.   Mark Carder is a realist oil painter who has online courses, a Youtube channel and web page and a ton of free instructional videos, he also makes and sells paints and supplies.  The clip is from a new show "What is Wrong with My Painting" where he meets with a "student" and critiques his or her work.   At the end of this episode after the critique, he asks this "student" if she has any more questions.  She starts to get a little gushy about how he is such a "pure teacher" and "very rare"... hope this brings a smile to your face too!    

    Reblogged:Ocasio-Cortez as Lipstick on a Pig

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    George Will's latest column argues that, at least in one respect, there is little to be excited about -- regardless of one's political orientation -- by the recent primary victory of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. His closing paragraph offers a good summary of his position:
    That good news, such as it is, offers cold comfort when one realizes that -- as Will correctly indicates -- we are well on the way to socialism. Worse, those who want us further down that road to ruin are in fashion, and aren't listening to the likes of Will, or to legions of conservatives who correctly argue that socialism will fail (again!) to lead us to prosperity. And neither are too many people who haven't considered the question deeply.

    That last fact should alarm conservatives, but, strangely, it doesn't seem to. Many seem oddly content with smirking at how "unthinking and unobservant" Ocasio-Cortez or her supporters seem to be. Yes. Socialism is a pig and Ocasio-Cortez is just the lipstick Bernie Sanders and his ilk have been looking for. But our benighted youth were ready to accept that pig, anyway. That fact is nearly as alarming as the lack of solid opposition from the right.

    -- CAV Link to Original

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