Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mike Joyous

Newbies
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mike Joyous

  1. Objectivism: "Closed" system

    Is there any material idea in Six Pillars that is untrue? If so, please state it. Rand's insistence that her ideas are all that Objectivism is about has to be taken in context. It was a time when Objectivism and Rand were besieged by folks who did not understand her works. To speak that way about Branden makes no sense. At that time, Branden understood her work but was not honest much of the time. However, in openly confessing his misdeeds, in his creativity in his field, and his zeal in applying Objectivism within his field, I see his cry for redemption. When Rand treated him as beyond hope, that was shameful. I think it's really important for us all to look at many of her ideas critically. I am not talking about her fundamental principles, but about many of her applications.
  2. Objectivism: "Closed" system

    Is there any material idea in Six Pillars that is untrue? If so, please state it. Rand's insistence that her ideas are all that Objectivism is about has to be taken in context. It was a time when Objectivism and Rand were besieged by folks who did not understand her works. To speak that way about Branden makes no sense. At that time, Branden understood her work but was not honest much of the time. However, in openly confessing his misdeeds, in his creativity in his field, and his zeal in applying Objectivism within his field, I see his cry for redemption. When Rand treated him as beyond hope, that was shameful. I think it's really important for us all to look at many of her ideas critically. I am not talking about her fundamental principles, but about many of her applications.
  3. Objectivism: "Closed" system

    Dear Dreamy:)Did you actually read Six Pillars of Self-esteem or Hospers' Introduction to Philosophical Analysis? If what Rand says leads to censoring truths, then it's necessary to check our premises. Rand has led me to many wonderful truths and clarifications, but if the folks who purport to spread Objectivism make me feel like the theologians who refused to look at Galileo's telescope, there is something wrong. I listened, by the way, to part of the broadcast you mentioned. Please state the principle behind avoiding looking for truths. Setting the bar at 0 degrees feels exactly like religion to me:(
  4. Objectivism: "Closed" system

    You know the tree by the fruit it gives forth, sayeth the Bible:) If Peikoff and ARI's thinking results in not mentioning the works of folks like Kelly, Sciabarra, Hospers, Machan, or the Brandens, there is something foundationally wrong.
  5. How "open" are you about your Objectivism?

    People don't like Objectivism because it's different. Some folks embrace new ideas; most folks do not. The key to spreading Objectivism, for most people, is to become a recognized expert in any field, and then to show how Objectivist principles can illuminate that field. Quoting, or should I say "misquoting" Rand will not achieve that.
  6. Hi senor Architect These people already know the senses are the only way we know reality. They don't eat arsenic instead of food--or they would not be alive, here, and doubting the validity of the senses. They are playing with these ideas. They do not understand that to Objectivists ideas really matter:(
  7. Are We Going to Go to War with North Korea?

    First, North Korea won't actually go to war. When it comes to naked survival, they are rational. They have stayed around longer than the USSR. They know what to do-and what not to do. They want nukes to feel militarily as good as other nations. Giving up nukes does not lead to long lives. Think Qaddafi Having nukes, assuming basic rationality, lessens the threat of actual war. Think India and Pakistan. They still have small conflicts, but nothing major--once they had nukes
  8. Kevin, the senses don't deceive you. Like little kids, they may try (and don't you love kids?) but there is no malice intended. You may make a mistake or not want to understand something, but our senses function like biological cameras. Of course, you know all that... sigh...I wish more substantial ideas were mentioned here.
  9. But my dear Kitty, how could you know your first idea was false except by using your senses? The first time you made the sensible conclusion that the sun revolved around the earth. Then with other sense data, you changed your mind, by integrating, say, your first percepts with satellite videos. Your first percepts were still true, but now your thoughts were taking into account other percepts, also true. Does that clarify, O Beloved Spook? Mike
  10. Hi William I think our own beloved kitty has a point! Does 1+1=3? No matter the means, if the computer arrives at an error, it has an error (poor thing). Maybe the data entry was wrong. Maybe it skipped a gear. Who knows?
  11. Dear Spooky Kitty, do you really believe any of this stuff--as in 'cross my heart and hope to die if it be proved that I did lie? ' Tell me, how many times today did your senses fool you? Yesterday? Tomorrow? Somehow, except in college dorm arguments, I don't remember any. Mike
  12. Rand has addressed this in the basic principles of objectivism course originally created by Nathaniel Branden. There was an article about this issue also in the Objectivist Newsletter. The senses are the basis of all knowledge. They can't "fool" you because reality is inherently stable. A chair does not disappear when you don't löök at it. A chair does not turn into a bird when you are not there. The senses can provide extra information about reality, as when a stick seems to bend when part of it is in water. The senses are providing extra information about light waves, but that extra info does not contradict one's earlier perception of the stick outside of water--which looks the same as it always does in that context of "not being in water. "
  13. Starting an Objectivist community group in So Cal

    I would like to attend, but I'm in Sherman Oaks and my poor car has been victimized by a dishonest mechanic.
  14. Hi Szalapski:) First off, I am Mike. Howdee:) To get to your thought, I have this fantasy of eating a thousand dönuts, my stomach expanding, but with a deep feeling of content. Ah, joy! Friend, do you see the difference between my joyous fantasy and the reality of how I would feel in that situation? This is not an issue of morality, Szalapski. Morality is about being as conscious as you can be at any moment. With respect to eating, your conundrum is that you have been listening way töö much to the "words" of others, and way töö little to the wisdom of your own body. Instead of worrying about eating töö many dönuts, try closing your eyes and focusing on the sensation of the donut as it goes down your throat and how your hunger changes as it enters your stomach. Your body has a natural regulatory mechanism that will prevent serious overeating most of the time--if you choose to focus on it! If you do overeat, most of the time you will undereat in the future! Mike
  15. Hi oh thou Spooky Kitty How do you know when your senses are fooling you? If you don't have something outside of you that you know is real, if your senses are always fooling you (like devilishly inventive kids), how did you ever learn they were fooling you in the first place? Mike
  16. Stumbling in

    Hi:) As a personal moral code, I embrace the virtues described by Nathaniel Branden in his "Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. " The hardest ones for me are self-acceptance, self-responsibility, and acting upon my best thoughts. How about you?
  17. Objectivism and me

    Hi Zack, I like you. I have never been arrested but I empathize with that part of you that is searching. Nowadays I work as a data gatherer. I would love to create a home business, but I get tired and sleepy when it is time to begin. I suspect I am scared of using my mind:( Mike
×