Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

EC

Regulars
  • Content count

    1762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About EC

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/23/77

Profile Information

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

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Michigan
  • Chat Nick EC
  • Relationship status Single
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Occupation Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

5296 profile views
  1. That guy's a complete idiot and you should be glad that you didn't go forward with that job considering his asinine, immature behavior. What you do, and who you call or not is your business alone. I would of responded to the idiot's email with one saying he can go fuck himself.
  2. What in the hell are you even talking about? You would be one of the few people in the world who would think that was a "conspiracy" beyond Hillary supporters. And while you're at you need to explain why you have this insane confidence level in the FBI.
  3. That doesn't matter. The FBI let her go because of who she is not because of what they found. I highly disagree that they have a strong legal argument. I have no clue what the law is exactly and what it says exactly about not securing classified documents but I know that it exists and should exist. It's also well known that she didn't follow that law however it's stated. The only logical conclusion is that they let her off because they didn't want to create a political situation with a Presidential nominee, not that she didn't break any laws. If you think we still live in a country that doesn't let people off on crimes because of political pull then you are mistaken. Edit: This new software for the forum is annoying. I had your last quote stuck here for the longest time before I could delete it. And there's no simple "go advanced" feature where you can quickly just edit quote tags and stuff either.
  4. Having classified material on her private server? Then deleting them? The whole thing the FBI investigated her on a couple months ago.
  5. I'm not "for Trump" at all but his opponent should be in prison for her crimes. Instead she will be elected President. lol Wouldn't the Founding Fathers be proud if they were alive to see today's clusterfuck of an election.
  6. Yeah, that's the fundamental disagreement in this thread. The metaphysics of anything, including death, can never be good or bad, because whatever it is, it is without evaluation. And none of us on the Objectivist side can't understand why he would want to evaluate something that simply is, essentially ethically. It's like he's trying to mix metaphysics with other branches of philosophy while denying he's doing so for some reason. Or he want's us to use other untrue definitions of the various branches of philosophy, while suspending what we all see as the truth of our own definitions. In his last post he wants us to completely drop any philosophical branch concepts completely and instead use blankout in their place? None of this is meant to insult you or anything OP. I think you are being honest and open while having good tone. While I haven't frequented this site in awhile, I am an Objectivist and have been a member since about '05. And I used to see people that weren't O'ist's come in here all the time with a bad tone and all they wanted to do was argue about everything while never attempting to learn the O'ist perspective, which is what this site is all about. So, that was basically a compliment. I'd recommend that you read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff and you should be able to get a solid understanding of the philosophy.
  7. I'll quote a few things just so you have an idea where I/we are coming from OP. Life ¶ There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil. Galt’s Speech,For the New Intellectual, 121 The branch of philosophy that studies existence is metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies the nature of the universe as a whole. It tells men what kind of world they live in, and whether there is a supernatural dimension beyond it. It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux. It tells men whether the things they perceive by their senses and mind form a comprehensible reality, with which they can deal, or some kind of unreal appearance, which leaves them staring and helpless. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 23 Evil ¶ The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. “The Objectivist Ethics,”The Virtue of Selfishness, 23
  8. Death means nothing with regard to a dead person. A dead person is no longer alive to analyze anything. Things can only be good or bad in regards to a mans life. Good and bad cannot even be defined outside of the context of a persons life with regard to man. Whenever a person discusses whether something is bad it's always an ethical question. My statement that death is the cessation of life is all that can be said metaphysically. That's what it is, and nothing else.
  9. Metaphysics deals with the nature of what is. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with things being good or bad for man, and why. I see no purpose in speculating about things in regards to death that we know are false. Imagining things to arbitrarily be possible when I know without doubt that they are false leads me no closer to understanding the nature of reality, and in fact leads me further from it. We do understand death. It's the cessation of life.
  10. How do you define metaphysics and why is death "an intriguing field" for you?
  11. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the author drifts far from Objectivism pretty often.
  12. I suppose she would be similar to Obama. He's done a lot of bad things, although the worst things that was predicted he could do never really materialized. It's still been more of a creeping socialism type thing with him. So, I'm guessing we'd get similar with Hillary. I always disliked Hillary since I was a kid so don't want to see her anywhere near the Whitehouse, although I think that's becoming more and more likely. Regardless of what her Presidency ends up looking like, I still think it's the next person 4 or 8 years from now who will be our main concern in the context of threatening freedom. I don't like being a pessimist, but I fully realize my view right now is rather pessimistic with regards to the countries future right now.
  13. I don't know if Nicky is trying to defend Clinton which is just as horrible as defending Trump or not, but the country has officially dipped into insanity the moment either of these candidates could be elected. So the only two people that can be elected to the highest office is a socialist or an idiot with no principles at all? I mostly quit following politics when Obama was elected because I had thought such an evil man could never be elected in this nation. I was wrong, and unbelievably it actually happened twice. I don't think either of these people are evil enough to start the dictatorship we are heading towards, but the next guy in four or eight years who rises in opposition to either one will be. The country is ready for it now. Our choice of Presidential candidates is ample proof of that. The Republic is dead, and it's dead because these two candidates represent the "values" of the vast majority of the population of this country now.
  14. I agree with everything SL said above. I think a better question for the OP is when we create real AI sometime in the near future should we initially create it as OP has suggested or completely in our "own image", i.e., with the ability to focus or not? Pretty much all future "evolution" of man is going to be caused by our own decisions, via things like genetic engineering, and will no longer be just a result of chance over an extended amount of time essentially leaving OP's question completely moot.
  15. That's exactly why I said to ignore all their crazy premises and theorizing and instead to only concentrate on the increasingly massive amounts of video evidence showing military movements within the US and training that involves infiltrating and controlling of populations. Training that is happening everywhere outside of military bases. Training that is happening within American cities and rural areas. Search for the evidence and mute the audio if that makes it easier. I am not the one that has lost touch with reality. Citizen's ignoring the warning signs of impending tyranny is exactly what allows it.