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

    Can one return to free-will after anihilating it?

    By Gabriel,
    Hello! I was absent for a while. I took a few weeks of vacation from any other intellectual endeavors to focus on several issues I was particularly interested in, mostly related to my 2 previous threads here, the ones that generated quite an upheaval. I would like to share with you, in a few words, the results of my quest, and the questions still unanswered. My field of inquiry was man's mind, an issue of primary philosophical importance. 1) on emotions Unlike my previous post here claimed, I am now convinced, both intellectualy and emotionally, that emotional change IS possible. There IS a degree of control over one's own emotions. The conclusion that I've reached is that emotional change comes from action. Therefore, only thinking about emotional change won't enact it. On the other hand, compensating and modifying self-destructive behaviour does indeed directly improve the emotional state. What IS left for debate is the range of change possible. Can one act himself into fully proper living DESPITE a self-destructive emotional background? 2) on free will The conclusion I've reached is that free will exists but its application is not automatic. IF, and only if, one thinkm focuses, reasons about a certain choice, then he acted freely, according to his own will. On the other hand, if one acts unconsciously, mecanically, dogmatically, or otherwise unfocus, one "disabled" his own free will and invites determinism to set in. My question is... Once one has anihilated one's free will, one's mind, but a consistent commitment to the irrational, thus inviting social determinism, can one return to a state of free will? What are your oppinions on emotions and free will?

    Necessary Environmentalism?

    By Dan9999999,
    It seems that while most, if not all, government interference in business is wrong one environmental protection always seemed to me to be needed. While it is easy enough to assess whose land a business my be polluting the question of the air seems much more complicated. Since air moves and polluting the air can have lasting consequences, though exactly how much is questionable, isn't it necessary to have the government force companies to clean up, or simply not pollute, the air, as air cannot be practically owned.

    Interview with the VodkaPundit, Stephen Green

    By AndrewSchwartz,
    Hello everyone, The Atlasphere is pleased to announce an exciting new interview with popular political (and pro-capitalist) blogger Stephen Green, a.k.a. the VodkaPundit. Green discusses his thoughts on the "Axis of Evil," the influence of the blogosphere, his discovery of The Fountainhead at age fourteen, his thoughts on Rand, and how he met and sustains a healthy romance with his wife. You can read it at the Atlasphere: http://www.theatlasphere.com Best wishes, Andrew Schwartz

    Introducing Don Galt

    Guest DonGalt
    By Guest DonGalt,
    Hi I'm Don Galt. You could say I'm John's obnoxious, hot-headed, clear-thinking, more practical brother. Or, I could say that. Its always interesting how many people assume that Don Galt is an alias (and how many people misread it as John Galt) and I've gotten a lot of heat for having this name. I once had an objectivist mailing discussion list demand that I gove my "real name" in order to discuss with them. I tried to talk it over with them, but they were not very responsive, so eventually I just signed up under an alias-- the name of the author of a book I was reading at the time. They were ok with that, because they assumed it was my real name. I think the point of the internet is that the person's ideas, rather than their name should be more important... so why am I talking about my name rather than my ideas? I guess its in expectation of some flack... but, its also to bring up the topic that is formost on my mind these days: People have a lot of trouble being rational. They'd rather divert attention to names than deal with issues. Even when you try to deal with the issues-- and I'm guilty of this-- it can often endup being dysfunctional because what you think they are saying isn't what they are really saying. And many people are so practiced at evasion, that they have trouble focusing even when they are trying. And adding to this is the prevalence of corrupted institutions-- you're familiar with the "Big lie" theory, right? Tell a big enough lie, and assume it as truth from teh get go, and people will argue about implications of the lie, rather than question whether it was a lie to begin with. A good example is the libertarian party-- they want to end violations of the NAP by... violating the NAP! Courset here isn't a plethora of options for making the state moral that don't violate the NAP, so I can't hold it against them too long. Another thing that I believe is the idea that any movement-- especoally of minorities-- should stick together rather than waste time infighting-- you never become the minority when you can't get your message out. This is in direct contradiction to the frustration and anger that comes with seeing hypocrisy, and the fundamental undermining of the movement by hypocritical organizations. A good example is the ARI / TOS split. Libertarians are not the enemies of objectivism-- all objectivists are libertarians by definition. ARI hurt the cause of objectivism by being so fanatical and irrational. Ok,. I think that tells you enough about me.... hopefully this forum won't be dead for long... Greetings.

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