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.

Onyx Shoham

Newbies
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Onyx Shoham

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country Israel
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status Single
  • Real Name Liran Shoham
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro I am a young man at the age of 18 living in Israel. I left home at the age of 18 and a week for my parents are both bureaucrats and I could not live morally through their efforts. I am wishing to immigrate to the United States to further pursue my values. I work as a personal trainer part time. Until i can produce more as a trainer i work as an inventory counter at a large retail company with my grandfather. I practice Judo and see myself in the Rio Olympics. I am interested in fitness, Judo, exercise physiology, mechanical physics, engineering, nutrition, athletics, history, economics and of course philosophy. I value strength, justice, freedom, independence, mental and physical ability, athletics, rationality, honesty, nutrition, hygiene and courage.
  • Experience with Objectivism I was exposed to Ayn Rand through the works of the body-builder Mike Mentzer. I read the Fountainhead at the age of 17. I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged. Between the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged I read Objectivist essays and Philosophy: Who Needs It. After Atlas Shrugged I am planing to read OPAR. I heard many videos and podcast of members of ARI.
    I have a decent yet not great grasp of the foundations of Objectivism.
  • Occupation Fittness Trainer

Recent Profile Visitors

1226 profile views
  1. Hola! Qien es de Sud America?
  2. okay, after enough instances of comedy its lets abstract! it was already pointed out that jokes have a False Exectation. in this case the exception is that although the word implies that since "holy" and "hell" are anti-thesis, that does not mean that "boiling the hell out of it" makes it the antitheses. in the comedy of a parody: take for example the inept, incompetent, brain-dead bureaucracy in a movie. If you are on the premise that these bureaucrats CAN function but don't do so because of various reasons then it makes you laugh by virtue of thinking "that's not how bureaucrats SHOULD act". But if you are on the premise that incompetence is the standard for government offices you look with pure disgust onto it since that is your evaluation of them. The common thread to all of these situation is the application of exception. Those who laugh will think "they are not like that" and those who don't will think "they are like that". For another example you will laugh if someone will tell that John Galt is reading his horoscope. If all else we know about him is true then that's impossible. In essence the comedy of parody is the false exception of moral character where you expect something in reality from someone yet something else is shown. When we laugh at someone the psychological effect is dismissal as "ha ha ha, hes not important". For example the student raising a serious reality oriented question to his philosophy professor. The professor, aware of his intellectual bankruptcy, can only try to ridicule the student publicly in hope of making him intimidated to ask the question. The student feels intimidated (if he is a social metaphysican) since his significance is laughed away by other people. so far we have riducle of importance, false expectation of character and expectation of a word definition. as a perfary we can add that in mentally ill people they laugh constantly when at the point where they cannot distinguish reality from there delusions. the common instance to all of these is the saying "this cannot and is not true" or in other words negation. now this is not new, it was Aristotles orignal theory of comedy and the theory that Miss Rand, among other philosophers held. In philosophical terms it is Metaphysical Negation. The question now arising is when does one stop luaging. For instance Dagny first said to Galt "we didnt have to take any of it seriously, it was all a senseless joke" for the Strikers it is not funny. However to the two young boy's that grew up in the Gulch the idea of such behavior will make them laugh. Or a student who,before starting college, hears about Kantinism or Platonism looks at them as a sideline of insanity and luaghs it out but when he goes to study philosphy he discovers the immense curroption in philosphy. Thats my next question: when is it not serious enough to laugh at?
  3. okay, after enough instances of comedy its lets abstract! it was already pointed out that jokes have a False Exectation. in this case the exception is that although the word implies that since "holy" and "hell" are anti-thesis, that does not mean that "boiling the hell out of it" makes it the antitheses. in the comedy of a parody: take for example the inept, incompetent, brain-dead bureaucracy in a movie. If you are on the premise that these bureaucrats CAN function but don't do so because of various reasons then it makes you laugh by virtue of thinking "that's not how bureaucrats SHOULD act". But if you are on the premise that incompetence is the standard for government offices you look with pure disgust onto it since that is your evaluation of them. The common thread to all of these situation is the application of exception. Those who laugh will think "they are not like that" and those who don't will think "they are like that". For another example you will laugh if someone will tell that John Galt is reading his horoscope. If all else we know about him is true then that's impossible. In essence the comedy of parody is the false exception of moral character where you expect something in reality from someone yet something else is shown. When we laugh at someone the psychological effect is dismissal as "ha ha ha, hes not important". For example the student raising a serious reality oriented question to his philosophy professor. The professor, aware of his intellectual bankruptcy, can only try to ridicule the student publicly in hope of making him intimidated to ask the question. The student feels intimidated (if he is a social metaphysican) since his significance is laughed away by other people. so far we have riducle of importance, false expectation of character and expectation of a word definition. as a perfary we can add that in mentally ill people they laugh constantly when at the point where they cannot distinguish reality from there delusions. the common instance to all of these is the saying "this cannot and is not true" or in other words negation. now this is not new, it was Aristotles orignal theory of comedy and the theory that Miss Rand, among other philosophers held. In philosophical terms it is Metaphysical Negation. The question now arising is when does one stop luaging. For instance Dagny first said to Galt "we didnt have to take any of it seriously, it was all a senseless joke" for the Strikers it is not funny. However to the two young boy's that grew up in the Gulch the idea of such behavior will make them laugh. Or a student who,before starting college, hears about Kantinism or Platonism looks at them as a sideline of insanity and luaghs it out but when he goes to study philosphy he discovers the immense curroption in philosphy. Thats my next question: when is it not serious enough to laugh at?
  4. i always say to women when i meet them: i see your lonely, i also like being alone, want to be alone together? now its good because all people that meet and get together want to be alone together and need to be with someone else with something valuable to them. its so witty and concise it puts James Bond to shame.
  5. well then differences of man and women are metaphysical by nature, now metaphysical conditions can lead to different value-judgments and that leads to different subconscious evaluations (psychology is the study of the subconscious from a medical perspective) and emotions, in that sense they will have a different psychology but to say a women will respond because she is a women implies that values are intrinsic and women evaluate them innately. Though it is reasonable to say a women that you will want to be with will hold the same values but evaluate things differently because you are metaphysically different. P.S. i leave out the difference between psycho-epidemiological capacities between women and men because it is vague scientifically and not directly relevant to the discussion, though i see it more pluasable that men have a greater deviation in intelligence.
  6. well doesnt this boil down to the idea that women have innate concepts?
  7. this is a thread where everyone post there best original jokes. This is not a barroom conversation it is a collection of particulars for a theory of humor i am developing. My current theory states that the humor is the metaphysical negation of a proposition. When applied on moral proposition it is ridicule. That is why the villains in Atlas Shrugged make you laugh, especially with the reality of the heroes. So please post jokes and analyze them to your explanations if you want.
  8. he answered "someone has to keep him". i dont think he felt too much compassion for him. He probably did it from a sense of duty.
  9. Leonid This would be purely compassion if it was done on a moral choice. The fact of the matter (that i did not state well enough) is that the dog was fed on dogmatic principle. My dad even pointed out to one time that his family did not have much food to eat yet decided to put priority of the dog first. Frankly i do not think that the family (at least my father) really liked the dog.
  10. While talking to my father he reminisced that while growing up with his family, a Latvian pro-soviet emigrant, they had a custom to feed the dog before everyone else stated to eat. The justification was that the dog had no way to feed itself. This is the most ridiculous example of altruism and the morality of sacrifice I could find in my personal knowledge.
  11. on the other hand we make great Phalafel.
  12. just finished reading epistemology in OPAR. only a taste of the challenge in IOE.

  13. Thank you for your warm welcome. i know most democracies hold these ideas but in Israel its much worse. no democratic country has been influenced by Communism as much as Israel. on one side there are the leftist socialist and on the other religious rightist. Its only a contrast of Juadastic religious zeal altruism and socialist-Marxist altruism where the secular right lip services "freer markets" so the millatry could claim it in time of need (or on whim) and an Palestinian Islam totalitarianism. a 4 way selection of Statism. the worse part is the consensuses that man owes his life (and property) to the military. Granted Israel is in a constant state of threat of its neighbors it does not mean that is in constant existential danger and that there is no time for the individual to live freely. in truth everyone believes that the country is there so you would be enslaved by a master that is of your own race rather than live freely and fight for a country that protects you. the biggest argument that Jews need to live in Israel is that it is the safest place for them to live. This ironic as the safest place for Jews was and will always will be the United States that supports Israel. There might have been some violence against Jews in America but it is nothing compared to the existential threat imposed by Muslim terrorist and Arab nations. The argument that Israel is the only refuge for the Jews after the Holocaust is based on the evasion that the Axis forces were barely stooped in Egypt with their sights for Jerusalem. Ironically scumming to racism after being exposed to immense racism Israel is a place i detest to live in. In Israel i will be forced into servitude of one form or another and now i am doing whatever i can to rid myself of mandatory army service and immigrate to America for life.
  14. HandlyHandle ​the largest(at their time) was the Shomer Ha'Tzair which means in literal translation the young protector. For my knowledge they were mostly in Kibutzes (Kibutz is a collective village governed by communistic political principles) and in some cities. The dinning hall was as "theirs" that can be in a society with above minimal property rights. This was from the early 50's to the mid 70's. I know this from some anecdotal records of people that lived and participated in the group and historic records i was exposed to. The group is a youth movement (which even today are popular in Israel) they consist of ideologists of Zionist-Communist such as Vitkin and Jabotensky. Equal emphasis on Zionist and Communist for both of them are crucial to the political ideal. the Ideology was a state of Jews that would transcend the oppressive capitalist elitism and class-war in a new Jewish state. They did build Israel from the ground up and claim so proudly what they do not shout in as much bravado is that ALL the materials to build Israel was donated or supplied directly by Jewish capitalist in America and Western Europe (Baron Rothschild as the most famous). Today they see themselves as for a Social-Democratic society while holding the exact same ideological convictions. Most of their members are young people who could not care less about ideology rather then feel-good group actives (which is a way to convince collectivism) chasing the opposite sex and with an incredibly shallow understanding of ideological principles starting and ending in with empty bromides. These group, or more correctly the lack of people that are independent of such groups, made my childhood here very lonely and unpleasant at best.