Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

gio

Regulars
  • Content Count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by gio

  1. I was there. It was a great week. I haven't check yet if we can see me in this video. At least the back of my head. 😄
  2. Simply correcting someone who wrote about Atlas in a book that it is unlikely that a few dozen people could crush the entire American society.
  3. I found my answer in Ayn Rand Answers, page 75. She answered in 1972 in the lecture "A Nation's Unity".
  4. I heard a lecture where Ayn Rand was answering a question where she was making a hypothesis about the number of people in Atlantis (it was about a thousand I think, but I have to check). I can not refind it, does that tell you something? Thank you.
  5. Will some of you go to OCON?
  6. No. As he said (in french) in the lecture with Yaron Brook, it's cheaper to reformulate what the others already wrote than to pay a translator. His book is mostly based on Ayn Rand and the World she Made by Anne C. Heller and The Godess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns.
  7. They don't think of him. As far as I can tell, he is virtually unknown, except for very few people among those who are interested in Philosophy. I think, Ayn Rand is more known (or rather less unknown) in France than Guyau. You are right about the second one. It's a little summary chapter by chapter, available for free here. The author is a reader of my blog about Objectivism, and since he made that book, I've translated some chapters of The Romantic Manifesto. The first one is supposed to be a biography of Ayn Rand. It was the only book in french about Ayn Rand since recently. The book was written by Alain Laurent, the publisher of Atlas Shrugged in France, who was also last year in a lecture with Yaron Brook. I was in the public, so was the author of the second book The Esthetic Philosophy of Ayn Rand. And I asked a question. Alain Laurent is also the publisher of The Virtue of Selfishness, but he removed most of the chapters, as I say in my video, including the introduction, to publish his own introduction. Because he is the publisher of Ayn Rand and because of that book, Alain Laurent is viewed as the "expert" of Ayn Rand in France, so when the french medias talks about her, they have Alain Laurent as a guest. In my opinion, it's a scam, because Alain Laurent doesn't understand Objectivism at all (It's easy to prove, he disintegrates all ideas), commit some errors and is regulary very critical about Objectivism grounded on his non-understanding and errors. One single example (among plenty): In the book you mentionned, he advocates that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher and that she had never read Kant, and criticize her for never quoting other philosophers. He wrote the same in his introduction of The Virtue of Selfishness, where he also says that Ayn Rand advocate some categorical imperatives. Clearly, he has never read Causality versus Duty. And it's always like that : He regulary sees "contradictions" in Ayn Rand's philosophy...grounded on his own misunderstanging or ignorance. As he is the only French voice, visible in the media, who talks about Ayn Rand. Many French people learn about Ayn Rand through him, i.e. through his errors, his fallacies and his superficial understanding. I think that there is no one who does not harm Objectivism in France any more than he does, though I'm pretty sure he views himself as a fair spreader of Ayn Rand. He is also very critical of the Objectivist movement.
  8. Yes I heard about Guyau when I was interested in Nietzsche. However, I 've never read him yet. But I don't see the connexion with my video. 😄
  9. But...if physics don't contradicts the Objectivist view of free will, there is no reason to reconcile them. I don't know if there is such litterature, it depends on what they conflicts with each other.
  10. How the laws of physics, particularly the second law of thermodynamics, conflict with Objectivist view of free will?
  11. I didn't know that, do you have the reference? I'm interested. EDIT: Okay I found it. I had already read this essay but I had forgotten this piece.
  12. 1° There is no "maintstream Objectivists", as if there is "alternative Objectivism". There is only Objectivists, period. 2° Objectivism could have common points or opposition with any political trend, it doesn't matter. Objectivism is not seeking to be "left-wing" nor "right-wing". To say that Objectivism share some view with anything (or is opposed to it) does not discredit it in any regards. If your primary goal is to oppose the left or the right (and not to seek the truth), then you can not claim to be Objectivist. For a rational person, the only thing that matters is not the conclusion, but the process: Why does Objectivism support such or such view? And: Is it consistent with the rest of its views?
  13. You didn't simply said that, but more: you said it is genetically determined (as in your comment about Sowell). The name for the idea that some races have inherently various degree of ability is: racism. That's a fact. I have a friend who hold the same idea as you, and he has no problem to say he is racist. But actually, in my opinion, like all ideologies that seek to destroy the concept of responsibility, racism is an ideology of loosers which has more psychological than philosophical significance.
  14. Objectivism holds that even if your ability are limited, that's no problem as long as you use your ability to think to the fullest of your capacity.
  15. I didn't call you racist at all in my previous message. I merely answered the question of what Objectivism had to say about race. But only since your last comment about Sowell, it seems that you are actually racist, because you seems to suggest that some races are genetically superior or inferior to others, and this is the definition of racism. I don't use this word as an insult to silence or bully you, but just as a matter of objective fact, because it's relevant to the topic of relation with Objectivism. Racism is obviously antithetical to Objectivism, there is no question about that. Objectivism is opposed to any form of collectivism, class or race determinism. It does not hold that certain genes correspond to behavioral patterns. It holds that man is born tabula rasa, that all behavioral patterns derive from your ideas, and that every man has the free will to choose his ideas. Some groups of humans (like man / woman) may have different needs, tendancy or inclination (+ physical differences), and it could be the same for races, but it is different than conceptual knowledge. You can disagree: then you disagree with Objectivism.
  16. It doesn't. The only thing Objectivism has to say about race is that racism is a form of collectivism, and the rest is what the philosophy has to say about collectivism. /thread
  17. According to Objectivism, rational faculty is volitionnal. If you are talking about a non-volitionnal faculty, then it has nothing to do with what Objectivism deals.
  18. Just to be clear: In your view, do race affect the ideas, the faculty of thinking, of an individual? Do Thomas Sowell share something fundamental in his head with Obama and 50 Cent, that I (as a white) haven't, while I have some different fundamental thinking that I share with Stalin and Steve Jobs, and that Sowell, Obama & 50 Cent haven't? (Obama, as a mixed, may have mixed premises?)
  19. She didn't believed that "due to the information that was available at the time". It is true that Objectivism holds reality is the primary source of knowledge. If tabula rasa is wrong, the philosophy will not change: it would merely mean that this philosophy is wrong.
  20. Objectivism hold that man is born tabula rasa. If you disagree, fine: then you're not an Objectivist.
×
×
  • Create New...