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
- 20 replies
- 3353 views
- Add Reply
- 32 replies
- 4948 views
- Add Reply
- 1 reply
- 1027 views
- Add Reply
- 0 replies
- 1445 views
- Add Reply
In my Ancient Greek Philosophy class this week, we have been discussing Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actuality. An acorn is not an actual oak tree, but it has the potential to become an oak tree--but it does not have the potential to become an apple tree. A human child has the potential to become many different things--a doctor, a painter, a factory worker, etc., etc.--but not all of these things, and he does not have the potential to become, say, a toaster or a cow. My question is this: is it fair to say that potentiality is essentially a negative concept, which just means something along the lines of, "that which does not contradict the nature of the entity in question"? That is, does saying that an acorn has the potential to become on oak tree but not an apple tree simply mean that it would not contradict the nature of an acorn to become an oak tree, but it would contradict the nature of an acorn to become an apple tree? Or can potentiality be defined positively? How would you define potentiality?
European Imperialism of the middle east, Africa, Asia, etc. Was it justified? As an officer of some European nation in the past, would you have supported invading and colonising the territories of Africa, Asia, etc? Was it moral? Your thoughts
I've been looking for an objectivist forum that used an advanced bulletin board / discussion software like this, so I'll plan to lurk for a while. I'm long out of college though (45 now) and a lawyer, so I won't try to cut in too often. Good luck with your board. Keeping these things from being flame wars is a major challenge, I know......
I've recently been seriously contemplating the following passage stated by Albert Einstein: "Man tries to make for himself in the fasion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extnt to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. . .He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannont find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience. . . The supreme task . . . is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resing on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. . ." I think it is interesting to contemplate how this relates to modern day science. Einstein stated here obviously that intuition and sympathy are the only path to universal laws. Consider this concept: Some scientific truths have lasted centuries , while others last not a year, especially modern day quantum mechanic theory, et al. Consider that scientific truth is not dogmatic, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that can be studied and changed over time. Of course, how this relates to the concept of objectivity and an objective universe (one independent of man's mind) is rather interesting. If man's ability to conceive of an objective universe (as interpreted by math and physics) that is forever changing over time (temporal dynamics), is Kant's position on reason the only RATIONAL position to have? What do you think? PS: I'm aware of a movement in objectivism of a return to Newtonian Physics but please don't rebut with that... Thanks