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:A Question for Majoritarians

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Walter Williams takes the possibility of a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives as a point of departure for indicating that our nation is not a democracy, and why that is a good thing. Towards the end, he poses the following question, which more people would do very well to consider:
    Williams also reminds us that the Founding Fathers regarded majority rule as a form of tyranny.

    I have considered similar questions before, and long ago came up with my own nickname for the phenomenon of people who support dictatorial measures: the "dictator fantasy (See last paragraph.)." In each case, wishful thinking is involved: Majoritarians imagine that most people think as they do, and "little dictators" think central planning will pan out they way they want it to.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Reblogged:Objections as Goals

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Via Hacker News, I ran across an article apparently focused on a how to convince others to try a new programming work flow its author developed. Whatever the merits of that work flow , the short piece suggests to me a thinking strategy one can use profitably for oneself when encountering new ideas:
    When using this for introspection, the goal is to explore the source of one's resistance to a new idea. The results won't necessarily always be to try the new idea, although that is one possible result, and can include trialing the idea or attempting to implement it more intelligently than one might have otherwise. One can also leave with a better understanding of why the idea is bad, or at least not suitable for the situation one might want to apply it to. A further realization could include leads on solving a problem -- the idea might help with something else, or the exploration of the objection might suggest a different solution altogether.

    Of course, nobody has time to do this with every new idea that comes down the pike, but it might be good to keep in mind for those times when one finds an idea surprisingly intriguing -- or when one is surprised by, say, the degree of resistance the idea arouses. If nothing else, such an exercise still can lead to valuable introspection about something other than the idea or the specific problems one is thinking about.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Ontology via Contrast: a proposition concurrent with Objectivism?

    A.C.E.
    By A.C.E.,
    Ontology via Contrast is the idea that, at a fundamental level, entities exist entirely through contradistinction within the plenum universe.
    This proposition might become clearer if provisionally tacked-on to the three familiar ‘laws of thought’:  
    • Law of Identity: A is A
    • Law of Non-Contradiction: A is not non-A
    • Law of the Excluded Middle: A or non-A 
    +
    ◦ Proposition of Contradistinction: A is A because of non-A 

    Strictly speaking it doesn’t belong amongst the three classical ‘laws of thought’ because its validity can’t be judged by axiomatic logic alone, it’s ultimately an empirical issue. It intersects the bounds between metaphysics and physics.   The basic proposition is that ‘difference’ — perhaps the broadest term possible to describe physical reality — necessitates the hewing-out of both ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ reciprocally. An entity simply ‘is’ on account of its contrast with ‘whatever-it-is-not’ — its delineating surrounds (the rest of the universe too if considered holistically).
    This idea implies a further fusing of existence with identity: identity as contrast; existence as contradistinction. There’s no prioritizing of relations over relata entailed here, rather entity/attribute/differentiation would all effectively be the same thing at this fundamental level.    
    This proposition would have some profound consequences for the way we conceptualize reality ‘out there’ — but I don’t want to bog this topic down by unravelling those concomitant implications just yet, it would be too premature a digression down that beguiling Rationalist path!      Main question 
    Under an Objectivist remit, could this notion be rejected on metaphysical grounds (thus foreclosing such an enquiry in physics)?
    I look forward to your thoughts. 
    If anyone does chip in I’m sure to eventually post my responses or follow-up questions here, allowing for a good clear-headed day or so. 
    NB, if such a hypothesis already exists within the fields of ontology/mereology/physics, likely with its own established appellation, I haven’t yet come across it (nor anything similar on this forum) and would welcome enlightenment.  

    Reblogged:Another Thing Trump Should Read

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Early on in the President's term, I reacted to Donald Trump's economic agenda as follows: "Get that man a copy of Economics in One Lesson yesterday!"

    Not to compare myself to Henry Hazlitt, but I now think he also needs to read an old PJ Media editorial of mine on immigration. Apparently, the President really believes that his Obama-esque pen-and-phone plan to do away with birthright citizenship will (a) have legal force, and (b) solve the problems he attributes to immigration. I fortunately have no need to rebut the first, and have already argued against the second, in the last two paragraphs of that editorial (with minor updates):
    That said, I am not sure that full citizenship should be acquired by the fact of birth. I am undecided on that matter, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it shouldn't be. Trump is choosing to address the problem by a means that further entrenches the awful precedent of the misuse of executive orders and further erodes the American political structure -- and he does so for the wrong reasons. Whatever differences should exist between the rights of full citizens (e.g., participating in elections) and individual rights (which our government should protect for all), use of "social services" shouldn't even be a consideration. That's because a proper government would not take from one person to give handouts to another in the first place.

    It's the filthy bathwater of the entitlement state we should be throwing out, not the "anchor babies."

    -- CAV Link to Original

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