Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Capleton

Regulars
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capleton

  1. That was a flawed analogy. One does not need to believe in the divinity of Jesus in order to be a Christian. This is so despite the protestations of Catholics and others. To be a Christian one must acknowledge that at very least Jesus was the son of god (this need not imply divinity) who was sent to die for the sins of mankind; so too one must believe that he was resurrected. Carry on...
  2. Do forgive me for not reading all of the posts in this forum. As Ayn Rand once said a constitution delimits the power of the government. It is not a manual, so to speak for everyday citizens on how to live their lives. From my understanding Rand said that one should not be a martyr whereas disobeying an immoral law is concerned. Objectivism (to my understanding) does not require one to obey immoral laws. If a law forbids me from performing a certain sex act with my wife or anyone for that matter should I obey it just because some bureaucrat-mystic and his like said so? If citizens should obey every dumb law why are they allowed to bear arms? I concur with the cogent words of Ayn Rand.
  3. RedCap: I will let most my previous post suffice. The title of my post was meant to be sarcastic for your information. Besides I know you have been on this site long enough to know where I stand concerning Objectivism. To claim that you are blissfully unaware of the fact that I am an Objectivist is disingenuous. I quite frankly have no time for your questions because they lack cognitive significance to me at this stage. I stated that he used a straw man argument so the "I think" is to be understood as me essentially saying that I was of the view that her actual ideas may not have been tackled in any sense. It is like you trying to tackle my ideas but when one evaluates the matter your critique might be completely off base. In the case of a football player he might attempt to tackle an opponent and in the end only "grab" wind. All the while the opponent is left unscathed by an ill fated attempt. GreedyCapitalist: Ayn Rand was a very polemical writer mind you. What is "real philosophy"? Such ambiguity! Before ever embarking on defending my ideas I usually have a good grasp of what they are. In that regard you admonition was not useful to me. Further, evil ideas can only strive if they are ignored. I am not here suggesting that one go on a crusade against the irrational ideas of today but what I am saying is that they must be confronted whenever possible. This is philosophy we are here referring to. The fact is that many people share the same premises although some hold them more conscientiously (read "Philosophy Who Needs It"). To argue against altruism one must give examples of altruists and have an understanding their premises (this is if one wants to be a good teacher). I am not here trying to impress anyone for your information. It must be noted that one only needs to ignore this forum if one deems it to be trivial. I am not enthused about replying to all these inconsequential posts. If this forum does interest you please leave it alone, thank you.
  4. Your estimation is a mess. Reading comprehension is especially vital but given the time of the day I forgive your indiscretion. If I were said to have been tackled that in no way suggest that I have been defeated. In the title of this forum I including the words "I think" and they appeared after the word "tackle". Everyone ought to know where my sympathies lie so I wonder why you are interrogating me at this time. I used the word "tackle" in this sense: "Embark on doing something: to undertake or deal with something that requires effort." The context should have notified you of this fact. The numerous questions posed to me are simply irrelevant at this time. Note: My post is not hostile and I am replying in like tone. Oh, one must not forget that there are many people that are new to Objectivism here. I think that a discussion like this would help them as well as "experts" such as yourself RedCap.
  5. The crux of matter is how ARI can verify that the transcript they have proof-read would be the one posted for public viewing. This all seems like ARI is doing it by the book; so to speak, it is their standard policy I reckon. To infer that ARI has some sinister plan to alter the transcripts is silly (note: I did not say you inferred anything). The person who initially asked “why” is being especially frivolous at this time. A does of Reason!
  6. I must say that I onced met an ex-Objectivist who seemed to hate Rand to the extreme. He never gave her credit for anything and he contended that she was an "amateur philosopher" to boot. One must confess that the term "amateur philosopher" is a rather silly one. He is now a pragmatist. Anyhow, while searching for a particular Ayn Rand quote I stumbled upon a site that is authored by an ex-Objectivist. I would like some comments about the site and particularly the critiques of Objectivist ethics. Objections to Objectivism A Critique of Ayn Rand's Ethics http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/TOC.html Concerning the document linked below. How You Can Eat Your Cake and Have It Too http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooCake.html Hello it is an analogy proverb. What a ridiculous straw man argument. Take for instance the cliché that one "you can’t have your cake and eat it too". When an individual uses this cliché it is very important to not leave the context behind. Arguing endlessly over this issue is like arguing about the cliché "a mind is a terrible thing to waste". Is the mind a terrible thing? Is waste of the mind the terrible thing? One can safely say that many people who utter the cliché mean that it is a terrible thing to waste one's mind (i.e., not use one's faculties to the greatest extent). So too Rand meant what the definition below conveys: "You can't have your cake and eat it too -- One can't use something up and still have it to enjoy." Did some say Stolen Concept? Clearly the word "have" does not convey a meaning similar to one consuming something. This is because the word "eat" is present and it is offered as an alternative (to "have"). From the underlying context the nutritional benefits of cake are not to be taken into consideration. What we are here dealing with is something (cake) as it was in actual form and one being unable to possess it (in its original form) once it is eaten.
  7. I have neglected to post in this forum far too long. Let me state that I support Israel and that I was pleased that Israel has finally decided to eliminate the leaders of the Hamas. I truly believe that if Israel had to worry less about its security that it would move ever further to being a secular state. For someone to claim to support America but yet have utter disdain for Israel is an inconsistency. True Israel is not a perfect state but neither is the USA. In the whole of the Middle East there is not a nation that closely reflects the values of freedom than that of Israel. It would be suicide for Israel to capitulate to those who are hell bent on her destruction. It is not that case that the terrorists want to remove a despotic regime (which has no rights) but it wants to obliterate a state that respects to some extent individual rights. All this so they can add one more theocratic dictatorship to the world map. This is unacceptable. On another note I agree with previous post. While reading it I remembered that I have always been intriqued as to why there are so many "Jewish atheists".
  8. Well said! I must say that I was impressed by your post. I still want to read the document by Dr. Kelley though so that I can find the problems that may lie in it for myself.
  9. Gabriel As far as I am concerned I could be a committed Marxist and still give lip service to capitalism and a constitutional republic. In that regard an ideology test would be of little use since it would be highly ineffective. Who decides what ideology is wanted in a prospective immigrant? Do they have to support the welfare system, affirmative action, faith-based initatives, anti-abortion laws and the like? Again, this strikes me (an ideology test) as being a dubious goal. I recall a time when Soviet spies used to train to be "perfect Americans" this was the case while today a simple immigrant only needs to parrot some phrases in order to pass the test you proposed (I presume). You said, "weed out religious fundamentalist", care to expand on what you mean? The American constitution makes freedom of worship a right that is to be protected. This means that it would not be obliged to stop someone from entering the states simply because they took the Koran, the bible or the Gita literally. Not all fundamentalists are prone to violence although they can be said to be highly irrational. With regard to "contagious people" I think there are measures already in place to deal with this likely problem. I think that the contagious disease consideration is most important in the immigration law debates. But then again liberty does not guarantee one a utopia.
  10. AshRyan AIDS is the only disease (of major concern) that some Haitians have. But for one to get AIDS one would have to have intercourse with a Haitian or some sort of blood transfusion. If an American wants to be intimate with a Haitian unprotected then that is his right (no infringements of rights here). From what you wrote above one would have thought that Haitians have some kind of skin disease that was highly contagious. Clearly from all evidence this is not the case. Must the government also ban interstate travel if one State has a higher incidence of a particular disease? To be honest I find the last paragraph of your post to be lacking. I agree with the rest of your post though AshAyn
  11. I first became interested in Objectivism because of a love interest. I remember that one of the major reservations I had about Objectivists is their support of Israel given their views on other matters. For instance, Objectivism decries collectivism but I saw Israel as essentially being a collectivist state where most if not all people thought that they were the "chosen people". My understanding at the time was that Israel made it mandatory for its citizens of a certain age to serve in the military (essentially they had a draft system if I am not mistaken). Not to mention the fact that certain religious groups are exempt from military service. I supported Israel but I was puzzled as to why Objectivists did. I am happy to report that now I have a clearer Idea why. I am forgot the other issues that I had because now they have all been discredited (in my mind). Why do you personally support (or not support) Israel?
  12. MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM by Quentin Smith http://www.qsmithwmu.com/moral_realism_and...entin_smith.htm I conclude that his paper has no value based on his conclusions (lol). This guy makes my head spin. Though the paper is lengthy it is by no means boring (if you can bare with the philosophical jargon).
  13. When I was an atheist without an integrated philosophy I supported the ACLU but no more. The main reason that I do not support the ACLU is that they tend to champion "positive rights". In essence, their stated goals are contradictory in that they evitably undermine individual rights. NB: I did not give concrete examples because this has already been done.
  14. I must say that I found Peron's arguments to be more convincing than those of Joseph R. Stromberg. Who is Stromberg trying to kid? His piece sounds more like the polemnic against Objectivism. Not only did he make ridiculous comments but baseless ones also. For instance he says: It amuses me that many critics of Objectivism always have to render trumped-up charges to make their case. How silly! The above was not and is not a position that is held by Objectivists. The fact that "A is A" is one of the most frequently uttered by Objectivists but we all know who was the first (recorded) to describe this fact of reality, Aristotle. Whether or not Rand said it-it remains true. I give Rand credit, however, for being a consistent philosopher who affirmed that reality if knowable (i.e., that A is A) in these times when men are thought that "nothing" can known (with certitude).
  15. I enjoyed reading the potent critiques rendered so far. Although I still need to refine my own I will share it with all. In the beginning of his supposed "critique" of Objectivism, Dolhenty states that, "Objectivist philosophers may take me to task for claiming that Objectivism appears to be simply another form of philosophical Materialism." He is correct in his estimation that Objectivists such as myself would find his view to be divorced from reality so to speak and thus worth being countered. One can't help but detect that Dolhenty has a serious gripe with the Objectivist position that god commonly defined (a supernatural entity) does not exist. He made it clear on his Website that he believes in a god but on "nonrational" grounds so one is lead to the conclusion that though he sympathizes with many Objectivist positions he is resentful of Objectivism's atheistic nature. He comments on his own god beliefs by saying: "I don't think that the existence of a personal God, that is, the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, can be proved through the use of human reason (or proved philosophically) [...] I do believe in a God which created and continually sustains the existence of all Reality. I do not base this belief of mine on any argument using human reason, although I would argue that the belief is not opposed to human reason, that is, it is not irrational or unreasonable. The belief is simply nonrational, that is, it is not based on human reason but on something else, probably what most people would consider faith. " If his belief in god is not based on reason then it is indeed unreasonable (inconsistent with reason) in this context. For if it were based on reason then it could be proven (objectively) and thus be reasonable. But alas, he states that his belief in a personal god is not based on reason and that he thinks that the existence of the being cannot be shown to be a fact based on reasoned arguments. How unreasonable. What's more, in an apparent desperate attempt to make out Objectivism to be a dogmatic materialistic philosophy he renders a loaded definition of philosophical materialism. The definition states: “Modern Materialism holds that the universe is an unlimited material entity; [Objectivist do not concur] that the universe, including all matter and ener [g]y (motion or force), has always existed, and will always exist [Objectivism hold that existence exist absolutely but what constitutes the existent need not be only material]; that the world is a hard, tangible, material, objective reality that man can know [We concur]. It holds that matter existed before mind [Objectivists hold that existence precedes consciousness for a "f nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms"] ; that the material world is primary and that thoughts about this world are secondary [Objectivism holds that existence not merely the material is primary].” (Charles S. Seely, Modern Materialism: A Philosophy of Action.) My interpolations (above) ought to suggest that Mr. Dolhenty has some apologizing to do since he promised that, "I don't think there is much, if anything, in that paragraph which would be denied by Objectivists. If I am wrong, I will apologize and stand corrected." I must deny most of what is stated in the above definition, so there you go. When I first read the definition that was given I had an acute urge to scratch my head. This is because I had always seen "Materialism" defined as, "the belief that only physical things truly exist". Of course, one can speculate on the implications of such a metaphysical view but I see little that can lend credence to the claim that Objectivism is dogmatically materialist. Moreover, it amusing that Dolhenty would muse over the issue as to whether Objectivism is in essence Idealistic, Materialistic or none of the above. For instance, Dolhenty states, "There seems to be only two choices here. If the intellect and ideas are material existents, along with everything else in the universe, then Objectivism would appear to fall into the Materialist camp. " Even if it could be shown that ideas are material this in no way suggest that everything in existence (i.e., the universe) is material. The false alternative that is offered is a hopeless non sequitur. He goes on to state that, "If, on the other hand, the intellect and ideas are nonmaterial existents, and everything else in the universe is Idea or Thought or Mind, then Objectivism fall into the Idealist camp." Again, claiming that one thing is nonmaterial does not automatically mean one would go on to claim that all things are simply inner contents of the mind that bear no relation to reality. In conclusion, Dolhenty has the archaic view that all gods are supposedly supernatural. He evades the fact that there are materialist who believe in god (s) though of a material composition. The rejection of the supernatural is not the same as the rejection of the god "concept". Objectivism rejects the mysticism peddled by Dolhenty and this seems to be a great bother to him.
  16. The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html I must say that this was the "funniest" critique of Rand and her associates I have ever read. Much of it is hearsay and quite frankly I do not consider it to be a critique of Objectivism but rather certain individuals. I checked his notes and most of the claims about Rand seem not have sources. The only reference material concerns his quotes of others.
  17. I would certainly like some comments about the "critique" of Objectivism that can be found by following the link below. Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism? by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. http://radicalacademy.com/objcriticism.htm To me he seems to have a poor grasp of the Objectivist position and the fact that his supposed critique is so short and timid makes him even more suspect. My critique of his critique is forthcoming (tommorow).
  18. To me you made a sweeping statement. If TOC is destructive as you say then that brings into question the judgment of all those who support said organization. If religion is claimed to be destructive by person A then one would conclude that person A is in essence saying that religionists have destructive mindsets. It can be observed that you never mentioned what bad health is in this case. Oh yeah, you said that the dude was out of shape and we are to believe that he is immoral for being out of shape? Many Objectivists smoke are they then to be considered immoral? Why is he fat: did you try to seek out this information? I think not! Does he think obesity is a good state to be in? Note: In an effort to avoid being accused of going off topic I will not continue discussing the issue at hand.
  19. I must object to the vitriolic generalizations that are presented above. I have visited TOC's Website and I found nothing that lends credence to the claim the so-called "Kelleyites" endorse mindless indulgence. Another issue is that you made a comment about the chap's weight; I quite frankly fail to see how this is morally significant. Do you have to have a six pack to be an Objectivist now? Anyhow, I hope your club is the winner in this whole thing because the chap you described seems to be rather irrational. This said, I think one would be cuddling the fallacy of composition to say that just because he "supports" TOC all TOC sympathizers (or the organization) indulges in his irrationality. Note: I am an advocate of reason and not necessarily a supporter of TOC.
  20. I asked the question to ascertain if I applied Objectivist principles correctly in my evaluation of this matter. Since the Objectivist holds happiness to be the moral purpose of his life he would certainly want to leave a country that is ruled by a dictator or is economically impoverished or one that is not suited to his needs. This is so that he may make a better life for himself and also any family that he may have. If the man in question immigrates to and stays in a country "illegally" he in no way violates the rights of others and he defrauds no one in the process. If a businessman wants to hire him then that is the businessman's prerogative and it relates to a consensual agreement between the two. I see this issue as revolving around the pursuit of happiness and it involves no violation of rights. It may be argued that an immigrant would have to lie about their immigration status to get certain jobs but the fact remains that it is immoral for the government to tell a businessman whom to hire (in the first place).
  21. THE THEORY OF ELEMENTARY WAVES by Lewis E. Little http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/TEW96paper.html
  22. I remember paying attention to a discussion on the Bill O'Reilly show that centered on illegal immigration. In this program Bill O'Reilly said that if he were a poor Mexican he would try to get into the U.S. (the implication is that he would do so illegally if need be). The thing is that O'Reilly is against illegal immigration but yet he still asserts that he himself would try to get into the U.S. illegally if he were in the position of a poor Mexican immigrant. To me this is like condemning someone for an act but yet asserting that if one was in the same position one would have done the same exact thing. To be fair Bill wants an immigrant worker program and a large scale policing of the borders. Now for my question: Is it immoral for an Objectivist to be an illegal immigrant?
  23. DonGalt: Why does Objectivism support individualism? The answer to this question would show the ineptitude of your argument. Anarchism advocates gang rule (i.e., collectivism) and it's manifestation is the exact opposite of objectivity, subjectivism. Who determines what rights are? In the case of anarchism it is the gang that has the most power to initiate the use of force so as to secure compliance. Being Objectivist doesn't mean that one is free to proclaim any evil (anarchism) and glory in that fact because one has asserted their individualism in making a personal choice to choose evil. You might be an individualist but are you rational? This is the key element you evade in your statement-the fact that one can be irrational and still claim to be an individualist. In your anarchistic land your individual rights can be violated at whim because there are no objective laws or the like. The protection agencies would have different ideas about what rights are and how to secure them. For example, there is the Christian Coalition police service that thinks that your wife's abortion is a violation of a fetus's rights. Then again, there is "Wanna-Be-Objectivist" police service think that it is quite okay for your wife to have an abortion. Whose rights are being violated? Who should I ask? Does the law of supply and demand hold in this case? What if most people demand that you be shot for letting your wife have an abortion? What is your demonstrable principle? Whim worshipping! By the way, you are not an Objectivist (see Kelley or Peikoff) so I must echo an earlier plea: "please leave".
  24. I proudly proclaim that I am an Objectivist (without apology) at this time. I am not really a "student of Objectivism" whatever that means. I simply recognize the supremacy of reason and I do not treat philosophy as a word game; philosophy (the study of the nature of existence, of man and consciousness, and of man's relationship to existence) to me is a method of helping me actuate the moral purpose of my life (happiness). As Ayn Rand once stated: I quite frankly find it silly that most of you all don't think that you are worthy of calling yourselves "Objectivists". Must one have a degree in philosophy to be an Objectivist? I think not! Must one read all the works of Rand to be an Objectivist? I think not! One can read all the works of Rand and not be particularly moved (as hard as this is to believe) because one might not accept the supremacy of reason. But once one has accepted the supremacy of reason then Rand would be a profound influence on one's thoughts and life (yes, I am serious). When one is a "student of Objectivism" does one ever graduate? Objectivism is not an elusive "state" that one tries to reach. eople. Don't feel as if you are unworthy of the name "Objectivist" simply because you might not be omniscient or infallible. I am not claiming to be an Objectivist scholar but I am an Objectivist nonetheless. Here is an excerpt from Rand's interview with the Play Boy Magazine: The key element is reason; let it be your guide.
  25. As I recall AshRyan raised the issue of the Primacy of Existence argument against the existence of a god and I thought it right to present a link where it is discussed. The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy by Anton Thorn Here he entertains possible objections. to the argument.
×
×
  • Create New...