Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

thenelli01

Regulars
  • Posts

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by thenelli01

  1. You still didn't convince me. How do you get from: Sex/Love are important aspects of life (which they are) to him claiming that "everyone needs to be with someone"? Again, just another random rant by you. Are you saying that they aren't important aspects of life, which is relevant to what the poster actually said, or not?
  2. I don't see how that quote says that at all. Are you trying to say that love/sex aren't "important aspects of life" or are you just going on a random rant? (Like usual)
  3. I don't think sex is even great without some long-term ambitions or at least some personal connection. Not necessarily marriage, but at minimum: "I esteem this person, I enjoy this person's company, and want to see where it goes." The issue is attempting to make sex a purely sensational experience -- it can't be done. Sex necessarily involves the mind -- whether that be your evaluation of the person -- or -- the setting in which the sex is taking place (e.g. behind a dumpster vs. in a comfy bed, or in front of your grandparents vs. alone in your bedroom). Your mind affects how good that sex feels. So, I think you generally have the right attitude towards sex, especially the fact that you'll have more fun experimenting with someone you actually care about. I would just say that I think you need to loosen up a bit -- why does this woman need to be a "thinker"? By thinker, I assume you mean philosophically. Does a dancer need to date a dancer? You can find value and good in all types of people -- so I suggest not shutting everyone out just because they don't know what words like "epistemology" mean.
  4. I had sex and I wasn't awkward my first time. I think that the issue is attempting to live up to a warped view of relationships purported by Rand. I actually am more attracted to the people that are different than I am. I'd hate to date an intellectual, because life would be so boring. There is only so much I can stand talking about ideas. I like people that bring a different aspect to my life that the intellectual side is missing. But, the person, in essence, has to be good, funny, and makes my life enjoyable (as well as me theirs). But, I'd still ask, because the above may be an unfair response to you: What values are you looking for, specifically?
  5. I'm curious why you use that word when: 1) the word "prophet" is usually associated with the mystics, and 2) it reinforces the notion of Objectivism being cult-like. Wouldn't it be more honest to simply say something like: "Ayn Rand was beyond her time, she predicted many occurrences of the present," rather than labeling her a prophet?
  6. Not to nitpick, but, your definitions for Greed and Handouts are too narrow -- Greed, as it is used to today, is more about wanting more than the bare minimum or what is necessary or average, within a certain context. Handouts do not necessarily involve force or the threat of force by a third party. I can think of plenty of handouts where there is no force involved at all -- such as a charitable donation or my parents giving me gas money.
  7. That is an entirely different topic. The "mind/body" comment was not about pursuing or weighing physical attraction or beauty in the context of a relationship. His comment was in response to this statement: "But you can quite obviously find physical beauty where the character of the person is unknown." Edit: [see page 1] That is when the poster said this is an example of the mind/body dichotomy, which it quite obviously is not. Sorry for the format of this post, I am on my phone.
  8. It is obvious... that is ridiculous -- I don't see how judging someone's physical beauty before knowing anything about their character is an example of the "mind-body dichotomy" and an example of an "improperly integrated subconscious." Maybe you can explain *how* it is.
  9. http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sam-Cant-Count-Investments/dp/0062292692/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0 Author is Dr. Burton Fulsom -- who is an Economic-History Professor at Hillsdale College. He was also the author of Myth of the Robber Barons. I've been waiting for a book that gave a historical account of government "investments". Looks pretty interesting. Comes out April 15th.
  10. Another athlete coming out: http://www.nj.com/college-basketball/index.ssf/2014/04/derrick_gordon_umass_sophomore_and_nj_native_announces_he_is_gay.html Very nice story. To clarify: the point of the first part of my first post [#3] was to challenge the idea of "coming out" out of context -- out of the context of a predominantly heterosexual / anti-gay society. The second part was recognizing the legitimate reasons, in this context, why gays would want to "come out" and how athletes, families, role models coming out is a step to curing the poison of irrational societal views. In the long run, when enough athletes / respected people come out, it will slowly change societal views towards gay. And the notion of "coming out announcements" will become invalidated -- making "coming out" stories a nuisance, rather than news. There wasn't really a disagreement, maybe poorly written on my end.
  11. It really depends on what your values are (i.e. what is important to you). For example, you are a veterinarian, rescue dogs, have a bunch of dog posters in your room, and you [clearly] love dogs. If it is determined that a CEO of a store that you shop at is mistreating a dog, then it may be appropriate to start a petition calling for his resignation and boycott until he is let go. For someone else, however, dogs may not be of interest to them so it may not be as important of an issue to them. But you are right, first you need to determine the nature of the action (i.e. why is it wrong?) and the scale or degree (i.e. is it so severe an act that it calls for a boycott?).
  12. Sure, you have every right to, but some people deserve an explanation. I don't know if his aunt is one of them in this case.
  13. Very sorry to hear about your mom. I understand what it is like to analyze texts that you sent and wonder if they took it more harsh than you intended. With my limited understanding of the situation, I think that a text was appropriate. Some people need to know straight forward and to the point [in a serious tone] that they are being too intrusive. However, from what I gather from your post, I wonder that the text may make her even more worried about you (and, therefore, more intrusive). As written, it seems that you want to shut everyone out, not her specifically for her intrusiveness. I agree with SN's advice.
  14. Yes, I thought that was what she concluded. Please do provide quotes. Edit: I could be wrong, I am asking you to provide quotes because I am interested, not to be snarky. I could say the same to you.
  15. How did you get from "..e.g., the wavelengths of light and the structure of the human eye, which produce the sensations of color.." [Rand] to "she definitely says 'sensations of color' are what one sees.."? [Regi] Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her position that sensations are produced by an interaction between reality and man's sensory apparatus. That interaction produces sensations (e.g. the sensations of color), which the brain automatically integrates into percepts.
  16. I'm not reluctant to admit any truth? Why do you choose to put me in a category with people with whom I haven't any association? You don't even know me. I was pointing out that she says sensationS (i.e. plural). I don't see how that contradicts the next passage where she clearly states that sensationS are components of percepts. We see percepts, which are an integration of sensations, according to Rand. So it is not contradictory to say: they produce the sensationS of color. If she said sensation (i.e. singular) of color, as you claimed, then I would agree.
  17. To be fair -- she says [they] produce the sensations of color. Not that color is a sensation.
  18. Your ability to think and choose whether or not you want to eat the cyanide is a value to you. So someone fraudulently getting you to eat cyanide is taking that value from you.
  19. Harry Binswanger made a claim in his new book, How We Know (p. 64-67), that Rand committed the fallacy of reification when she said: "A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism." "...Sensations as components of percepts." [ITOE 5] Any thoughts?
  20. What exactly is skewed by my original definition? It is, in essence, saying the same thing you said. "Fraud is defined as obtaining a value by deception regarding a material fact" 1 - obtaining a value -- (i.e. getting someone to act without their consent) 2 - a material fact -- (i.e. a fact that the victim relied on to make their decision) 3 - by deception -- (i.e. intention / perpetrator knew it was false) 4 - is implicit in any law Morally and within their rights aren't the same thing. Which one is it? (I'll give you a hint: -- fraud is a material lie a person tells which a person relied on to make a decision. It is a violation of rights because the fraudster takes a value or property from the victim by consent that was given on a condition that was not satisfied. Therefore, it is the moral equivalence of stealing.)
  21. I just want to make the point that this topic is complete rationalism. It takes an isolated abstraction: "Man has free will" and uses that as the base in which to deduce. So since man has free will by his nature, then it is possible to have a society or a world in which every man is rational. That is a concrete example of "thinking in a vaccuum". It completely ignores the fact that men, for whatever reason, choose not to think rationally. It's the equivalent of saying: "Since man has free will, then it is possible that everyone in Connecticut will decide to come to my school and bring me a cookie."
  22. To anyone interested: Rand explains the root of rights in detail in VoS and even further in this interview. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_rights
  23. P1: If someone yells at you unjustly, then you should not sanction it with friendliness. P2: This customer at the job I work at yelled at me unjustly. Conclusion: I should not sanction it with friendliness. Context dropped: The terms of which you accepted employment. The fact that you are required, by accepting work there, to respond with friendliness to customers, even rude ones.
×
×
  • Create New...