Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


EC last won the day on July 20 2017

EC had the most liked content!


About EC

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/23/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Physics, Philosophy, Sports, Reading in General, Thinking, Shooting Pool, Movies, Music, Technology, Poker

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

5820 profile views
  1. EC

    Grieving the loss of God

    I don't know if this is too far off-subject and therefore should require a new thread, but let's see if I can even phrase my question/the issue correctly. Obviously, people can believe whatever they so choose, rational or not. So, allowing other's this (irrational) belief in a deity, I never quite fully understand how they go from simply that to what is a completely different belief almost without exception: that this supposed deity then has the right to set all the rules on not just how they should live, but how everybody should live. Anyone want to take a crack at that? It would be roughly similar to saying that the designer of an apartment building get's to decide how it's occupants live their lives. That analogy is too simple, but should roughly show what I mean. It just makes no sense.
  2. EC

    Grieving the loss of God

    I never felt any type of grief that I know of or remember when I completely removed God's false existence from my mind. More of just a relief that all the contradictions and lack of evidence I was always told to ignore were actually really just contradictions, etc, and not something that was supposedly beyond the scope of my mind to "understand". Sort of like when you realize that all the weird theories you made up in your mind about how Santa Claus could fly around the world in one night while stopping at a billion different house and magically slip into houses without chimneys, etc., was all just nonsense that you no longer have to worry or think about.
  3. EC

    What are the basic emotions?

    The quote says that joy/suffering dichotomy is a "barometer of" the state of a man's mind. It says that joy and suffering are "basic emotions". It doesn't state that these two are "from which all others are derivatives" as you claim.
  4. EC

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Why does being genetically linked to a group of people somehow create demands on yourself if you don't share the same values as they do or even worse find them to be evil? And if it does, since *all* of humanity is genetically linked when you go back far enough, then everyone would have this "duty" not apply to everyone else in existence through all time? And since *all* life on earth is genetically linked and has a common ancestor this same duty would require you to treat cyanobacteria living 10 miles below ground with the same duty you treat your mother because we are all part of the same "family". Either genetic "bond" requires "duty" to all members in a class or such duty should not properly exist in reality as it implies something that supersedes and subordinates free will.
  5. EC

    Abstract Surrealism

    Lol that this was supposedly worth over a million dollars to start and double-lol that it's supposedly worth double that now. *Didn't read article so sorry if I'm missing some sort of context that makes any of this make sense.
  6. The original poster is not the article's author. The author is an Objectivist and the article is/was satire.
  7. That said the answer is the following: "To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death."
  8. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. To give an answer in regards to Objectivism *requires* that a person quote Miss Rand. If someone just supplies a person asking the question with their own words in response then they are just giving an opinion of their own, no matter how well qualified to do so. Official Objectivist answers to official question about Objectivism require the use of quotes, and anything beyond those quotes is NOT an official answer, it's just that person's opinion on the matter. Only Ayn Rand can give official answers to her own philosophy, and since she's gone, these type of questions can only be answered correctly via quote.
  9. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html No guessing or inferring from others needed! Also think logically, by definition "scientists" couldn't come to ANY conclusions, let alone the "conclusion" that free will doesn't exist, without the existence of free will. To do any type of science, let alone to come to any conclusions as a result of it, first requires the existence of free will.
  10. Why? Just curious because the internet (Youtube?) sounds like a great place to present such an idea at minimal cost to produce what I personally envision as a potentially beautiful new anime world.
  11. Which is why we need to always be referencing and quoting Objectivism's source material as often as possible instead of giving others our personal interpretations of what was said or meant. If people can read all the beauty of virtually every sentence she ever wrote and still be unmoved in a positive way then they aren't worth our time and barraging them with one's own "interpretations" of the philosophy is beyond pointless.
  12. EC

    White Supremacist Protest Violence

    My first thought on this was there is nothing wrong with preserving history. You don't have to/shouldn't remove a piece of history just because it has negative connotations associated with it. I'd argue that's a reason to actually leave the statues up, so that history isn't repeated.
  13. It's an error to believe that a dictator of a country that enslaves, starves, and murders his own people can be counted on to act rationally, even in self preservation. This is a war that should have happened a thousand times over so far. The reason why none of you in the above can think of other "solutions" that make any sense is because no such solutions exist in reality. You don't reason or bargain with a man pointing a gun at you threatening to shoot you--you eliminate the threat. I want to add before I forget: All that the last 20 years of bargaining with NK not to develop the means to attack us has brought is increasingly the ability of NK to attack us.
  14. EC

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Bold mine. I see. I'll admit I didn't follow the arguments in the thread carefully and was only responding to what I quoted directly. I think it is entirely possible that LQG might just be an alternative description of the same underlying physics. I can't prove but would guess there is some duality (or a change of coordinate using an existing symmetry) where LQM and String theories are alternative descriptions of the same phenomena. The ideas of a discrete geometry that creates spacetime is probably correct. For instance strings exist as excitations that are multiples of h-bar.
  15. EC

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Actual usage of quantum gravity from literally today. https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/