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

    Yo from Thailand!

    slave
    By slave,
    I live in SE Thailand about 150 km from the Cambodian border. Rainy season starts soon, so I hope to get back. Nothing beats those fried white moths that only come out right after it rains. At the moment, I am in the US settling some tax issue with Unlce Sambo.

    Favorite Dog Breed

    ALP
    By ALP,
    Here's a feast for an animal lover's eyes -- a blue merle Pyrenean Shepherd named "Simply the Best de Loubajac" (Call name "La"). She is the world champion in agility, mid-sized dog class, and cute as anything. I hope to get a blue merle like this someday.

    Noam Chomsky

    Atlas51184
    By Atlas51184,
    Does anyone know anything about his theories? I once read an article comparing his linguistic theories with some of Rand's views, and I can't find it now. Basically, I'm asking that if you know Chomsky's theories, and can point out some similarities to Objectivism, I'd be much obliged.

    Reason is futile?

    Guest ginzershop
    By Guest ginzershop,
    Hey... I recently made the mistake on another Discussion Board of engaging a poster who claimed that "terrorists could be reasoned with" I thought it would be a quick KO... All I had to do was show that terrorists operate on a model of force or fear and therefore by definition can not be reasoned with.. But the response was a challenge to present a situation where ANYONE with an opposite viewpoint changed a course of action due to "reasoned discussion" I am wondering what the most significant bulletproof historical argument might be. Any ideas?

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