Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

EC

Regulars
  • Posts

    2199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by EC

  1. I would like to offer an anology that I thought of that may illuminate why Objectivism's definition of Capitalism is the objectively correct one regardless of what the term/concepts originator's original meaning was or what any number of people, even if it were 99.999% percent population of the world, stated it to be. Imagine a group of people that are just starting a new language, and for my purpose I'll just make it English. Let's say this group, let's call them the sky-daddy worshipers, decide that they will call the liquid that is in the ocean "water". Now they understand that if they were to drink this water they would get sick, so the water that they can drink from lakes, etc. they call "pure water". Whenever they refer to the water they can drink they always call it pure water to distinquish it from water from the ocean. So time passes in the land of the sky-daddy worshippers, until a group that I will refer to as the enlightened few come along. The enlightened few are quite a group indeed, a group that rejects faith and instead use's only reason and scientific knowledge as their means to define and understand the world. Through their various studies the enlightened few had come to find that ultimately water and the pure water were the same at the chemical level, being namely H2O, exept the "water" had various salts and other pollutants in it that made you sick if you drank it too. So having a new more objective and rational defintion of water being H2O, instead of "the liquid in the ocean" they realized that their definition was the more fundamental one and that the "pure water" in the lakes should be what is refered to as actual water, while the ocean water was the unpure version that should not be considered fundamental. The enlightened few decided to show the world why their definition is the objectively correct one for "water", but the worshippers of the sky-daddy were going to have none of it. "But the word was originally meant to mean something else," they said. To which the enlightened few replied, "The original meaning was wrong. What the concept of "water" implicitly entailed is NOT what you originally thought is did." "But even if you're right how dare your little tiny small group go against the will of what the rest of sky-daddy worshipping-kind has arbitrarily decreed it to be," said the primacy of consciousness loving sky daddy-worshippers while invoking the fallacy of argument from intimidation. To which the enlightened few simply replied, "Our definition of "water" is the objectively correct one because it cuts directly to the heart of what the concept "water" means. It contains no contradictions and no unpure elements such that it needs to have another concept placed in front of it to understand its true meaning. The water that you drink, the water that you insist on calling "pure water" is properly defined as H2O, and whether you or anyone else besides us ever acknowledges that fact is largely irrelevent because A is A."
  2. Ahhhh...me too. How can I forget? I actually liked that show a lot though. And it really P*ssed me off when they cancelled it.
  3. So, to make sure I understand what you are saying I'll restate it as I see it-- Objectivists and anarchists would agree that individual rights are the key to a free society, but Objectivists know that a strictly limited government is the only way to achieve that end, while an anarchist would protect them by... how? Wild-west shootouts? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just personally don't see how any other way but a government of some sort would work if the goal was the protection of individual rights. Edit: But, I do see your point of how it would be hard to defend the need for some government on moral grounds with an anarchist since they tend to be nihilists by nature.
  4. EC

    Libertarians

    No, the proper political system of Objectivism is capitalism. Liberterianism does not equal capitalism.
  5. No OPAR is Peikoff's educated discussion of Objectivism. Objectivism is whatever Ayn Rand said it is, i.e., her writings and whatever other sources she explicitly endorsed. OPAR wasn't one of them because she had already passed away, although it was based on a course that LP taught that was explicitly endorsed by her.
  6. But in Objectivism the moral is the practical so your statement does not follow.
  7. Beauty tip number one: try and look as much like Jessica Alba as you possibly can....
  8. I forgot all about Epcot til you just brought it up. I loved that place when I was a kid too. There' not many places where you get to go on scientific carnival rides and essentially tour every country in the world in one park. It's pretty cool.
  9. EC

    Handedness

    All right! Including these ninja's I just noticed.
  10. I also saw it today and would highly recommend it, it's an 8 or 9 out of 10. Principled characters (both good, bad, and mixed), plenty of violence, beautiful women, what else can you ask for in a movie?! :D
  11. EC

    Handedness

    That's why I labeled the thread handedness, and not "are you left handed?". I was trying to "unbias" it to the extent that is possible here.
  12. The correct context is life of a man qua man. Not life in the biological sense you seem to be alluding to, i.e., simple survival, but life as a man using reason in a productive purpose for the ultimate end, his happiness.
  13. An Einstien-Bose Condenstate is when mattered has cooled to within a hair of absolute zero and a glob of many atoms of it is all in one quantum state and acts like it is one bosonic atom. This is usually accomplished using multiple lasers to kick out energetic atoms and less energetic atoms are trapped in a magnetic trap.
  14. Welcome to the forum. As I understand the rules, and a moderator can correct me if I'm wrong, you can obviously ask any questions about Objectivism in an honest manner while providing the context of your question ("your views") in an appropriate manner. By the way, a minor point is that "i" should generally be capitalized. I'm not perfect with spelling etc. either, but someone will bring this to your attention, so it might as well be me. Have fun!
  15. Let's see I've read the bible, was brought up in a christian family and society, and have attended church services, even though admittedly as a child, also I have also studied Aquina's five proofs that you seem to love. I think I understand the essentials of the religion. And I don't see how they could be listed in the philosophic sources you meantioned and not the bible itself. Is not the bible the ultimate philosophical source for christianity?
  16. Anyways, it is the whole concept of "original sin", that a man is depraved or evil in someway because he is a man, that is one of the most EVIL ideas in the history of mankind, and when followed consistently leads to... the dark ages. Or at least back to them. And contrary to the opinion previously expressed in this thread, it is why Christianity is ANTI-LIFE and not pro.
  17. Political commentary. I think on this subject of death you would have to report them to the Catholic Church.
  18. I agree. Until recently I regularly listened to conservative talk radio, but with the recent Schiavo circus and now the posts death listening to it almost makes me physically sick. There needs to be an Objectivist host, I think the market is ready for it.
  19. As I understand the Objectivist argument for the existence of gods(s), the concept of the arbitrary, a concept that is neither true nor false is essential to the argument. I don't understand how an Objectivist could or should argue for its nonexistence. That would be an attempt to prove a negative, which is impossible. I can't point to the nonexistent facts that "prove" the nonexistence of a nonexistent entity (god). Because there aren't any, they don't exist because the concept is arbitrary. But maybe I just don't understand what exactly it is we are supposed to do here.
  20. We already argued this exact subject with him in excrutiating detail about two weeks ago in the Atheist thread.
  21. Would there be a such thing as a poll answered by people who didn't chose to answer? And how would it operate, at gun point, now that's a poll I wouldn't want to read to much into.
  22. What happens if you all of a sudden burst into flame via a sudden combustion? You need to understand the difference between the arbitrary and the real.
  23. You could. In supersymetry all the forces and matter merge. It would be the ultimate and original "state of matter".
  24. What's "sms lingo" and does it involve poor capitalization and spelling rules?
×
×
  • Create New...