Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by gio

  1. Leonard Peikoff said in Ideas in History: Objectivism’s Relation to the Past and the Future that instinct philosophically means innate ideas. If instinct means innate ideas, does it means that animals have innate ideas?
  2. 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.
  3. How the laws of physics, particularly the second law of thermodynamics, conflict with Objectivist view of free will?
  4. Race Realism

    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.
  5. Race Realism

    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?
  6. Race Realism

    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.
  7. Race Realism

    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.
  8. Race Realism

    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.
  9. Race Realism

    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
  10. Race Realism

    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.
  11. Race Realism

    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?)
  12. Race Realism

    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.
  13. Race Realism

    Objectivism hold that man is born tabula rasa. If you disagree, fine: then you're not an Objectivist.
  14. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    By the same way we know anything is objective. And I don't get how you can even consider the idea that belief in God would determine what is objective: the exact opposite is true. You have to exclude the very idea of God or any faith before you can enter in the process of objectivity.
  15. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    Ayn Rand answered exactly your question in her course The Art of Non-fiction. The question was: "Doesn't free will contradict the idea that man has a specific identity?"
  16. Have you ever come across any of these sites? http://objectivismaynrand.com http://reasonvsfaith.com/ http://newromanticist.com http://dollarsandcrosses.com/ http://fact4thought.com/ http://abortionisprolife.com http://capitalism.org http://capitalismmagazine.com etc. All those websites are very similar and are linked to each other. They all look like preformatted and somehow poor made. Do you know who is behind those?
  17. Is this person known in Objectivist circles? Does anyone know him?
  18. That's exactly what I said in my discussion. I told that people who are influenced by advertising, somehow choose to be influenced: they don't care, or they accept it in a way. But this has not been heard or understood either. I was told it was not a choice, people did not have the capabilities.
  19. I had an argument with some people about the "power" of advertising. One of the guy argued that advertising could impose choices against our will, and force us to do things we did not want. He supported his point by the neuromarketing and the research on the stimulus and the brain. He emphasized my (real) ignorance on the subject. I failed explaining to him that these experiments and research could not prove that man was not free to make his own choices and that he can not be forced to do something he doesn't want to do. I really failed. I was merely an "ignorant" vs. a "scientist" who was constantly telling me to go to learn about the subject. Annoying. At the end he explained that the fact that there is physical laws, commercial monopolies, the size of my bank account, major depressive disorder, and many others factors ... showed that there was no choice in some cases. I failed to explain to him that it was a confusion between two different things, that you can't take the removal of reality as the standard of "choice"... he definitevely shone as "scientist" and me as "metaphysics" who confuses everything .... The misunderstaning I faced was hopeless and very frustrating. I'm not complaining about the disagreement, but the deep misunderstanding. I tried to explain that It's one thing to be attracted, it's another thing to lose the ability to say no ; but all I get as answer was that I don't know enough neuroscience and stuff like that. I don't have the scientific knowledge. What I said was automatically discredit because it's not "scientific", as oppose to neuroscience... Science (pretty bad interpreted I guess) is seen here as an authority, and everyone is "on the side of the science" of course. He didn't ask me to believe science on the basis of faith, he told me to go search and get information to learn about this topic where I am ignorant. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion, he never explicitly referred to cognitive science and neuromarketing, just vaguely to the relationship between science and advertising. I asked repeatedly if he could provide me with references that he considered probative to have a basis for discussion. And the only answer was that if I didn't see what he was talking about, it showed that I didn't know anything about the topic (I dont have "the level"), that I was lazy because I didn't want to do the research on my own, that I wanted him to did the work for me, so I didn't have the required level ... I ended up guessing (after a long time) that he was talking about neuromarketing, but when I showed him links and asked him if he evaluate this particular reference as probative, he just asked me: "In your opinion?" or "You should know for yourself.", "I'm not your teacher, you have to do the job." Etc. I found this particulary dishonest, but apparently I was the only one. Anyway, How to explain, in understable way, that neuromarketing and neuroscience in communication can't force us to act a way we don't want to act?
  20. I am pretty sure that my opponents did think that neuromarketing (or the use of cognitive science in advertising) actually prevents people from reasoning. And if I would have said that they haven't studied enough philosophy, obviously they would had laugh: they don't care about philosophy, they disregard it here, for them it's just a matter of science, a field which is certain and proved, as opposed to philosophy. Thus, the hardest task is to try to explain, to make it clear that this is not a scientific issue, but a philosophical issue. The whole problem lies there. I don't know exactly how to do that.
  21. This is not incompatible. You can have an idea that contradicts the results of science because you ignore the results of science. That's exactly what they thought I did. In fact, the discussion seemed to show, curiously, that they genuinely believe in free will. But that neuromarketing destroys free will. You see what I mean? All this makes things much more hard to argue with. I'm not sure it's very convincing for them. Actually, in our discussion, neuromarketing was an obvious example. But more generally, it was the use of cognitive science by advertising was supposed to be proof that advertising could impose things we did not want. And it will be complicated to argue that cognitive sciences are not science.
  22. I try to argue against the idea that advertising can impose to people stuff they don't want. As I said in my first post, that is exactly what I did. I asked for any scientific reference he regards as probative. And the only answer was that if I didn't see what he was talking about, it showed that I didn't know anything about the topic (I dont have "the level"), that I was lazy because I didn't want to do the research on my own, that I wanted him to did the work for me, so I didn't have the required level ... "I'm not your teacher" he answered, "go search by yourself, you're not a kid any more", etc. (this kind...)