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

    Donald Trump

    By Skylark1,
    What do you guys think about President Trump? Or is it still too early to form an opinion?

    Reblogged:Thought-Crime in Belgium

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    On the same day that a university let a black-shirted mob shut down a campus debate in Britain, there was a news report out of Belgium about the first man convicted of sexism:
    As I noted of "hate crime" way back in '05:
    No matter the merit or lack thereof of a person's ideas, simply giving voice to them (as opposed to, say committing libel or fraud, or issuing threats) harms no one, and should never be the basis for criminal prosecution. This dangerous precedent should be cause for alarm, rather than marked as "a first" as it apparently is there.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Nietzsche Was Evil; Right?

    By Gramlich,
    I've started reading Friedrich Nietzsche, and I can't help but be confused anyone took him seriously. The man seems to advocate for ideas that ultimately imply a kind of evil, and I'm wondering if I'm missing historical context that helps explain some of his more ridiculous statements.

    In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche writes: "For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgment -- that's where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species, perhaps even creates species. And as a matter of principle we are ready to assert that the falsest judgments (to which a priori synthetic judgments belong) are the most indispensable to us, (emphasis mine) that without our allowing logical fictions to count, without a way of measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world through numbers, human beings could not live -- that if we managed to give up false judgments, it would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life." Isn't the advocacy of falsehoods as "most indispensable" implying that one should engage in falsehoods as often as they can, that fictions are the true preferred content of one's mind and thoughts? I could understand how he could say that falsehoods were "indispensable,"  with his subsequent argument, but I can't understand how he would say they're "the most indispensable." Obviously, if a person was entirely contained with falsehoods, none of their words would count. They would have to admit that they're not seeking truth,  and we have no reason to assume that the words they write and speak are expected to be truth. It all seems self-contradictory, and I would expect someone to assume that Nietzsche is simply a charlatan trying to manipulate people for some alternative, personal purpose. Yet, people seem to think he's a great philosopher, so I'm wondering if I'm missing historical context or whether the speech of the times lent itself to peculiar wording.

    Argument about rights

    By setrotoxin,
    I was arguing with someone about the nature of rights, and I said that rights come from reason and can be proved. The response was that certain foundations for proving rights are arbitrary. For example, someone can arbitrarily produce a reason why we have a right to ice cream. Furthermore, they said that we can only prove we need two things to survive: food and water. Every other right, such as freedom of speech or religion, is arbitrary and that we as a collective only have them because we agreed that life wouldn't be enjoyable if all we did was collect the basic necessities for survival. They said the constitution was put in place, not to recognize rights as natural, but because most people agreed on the idea that rights would make life better for humans.   They also attacked private property rights by stating that if someone, for example, owns the rights to a river, then he can deny water to an individual, and therefore deny him his right to life, as water is needed to survive, thus there should not be property rights for bodies of water. How can one attack these arguments?

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