Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

softwareNerd

Patron
  • Content count

    13202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    210

softwareNerd last won the day on July 20

softwareNerd had the most liked content!

About softwareNerd

  • Rank
    Proud Father

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://practiceGoodTheory.blogspot.com
  • Other Public-visible Contact Info

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    My wife and kid. Software. Finance.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    sNerd
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    55 yrs old
  • Occupation
    Software Development

Recent Profile Visitors

51919 profile views
  1. This process has been moving at a snail's pace, but it does appear to be moving. The latest reform is that some property rights will be respected.
  2. I asked the question because, after I read the introductory pages you posted, and I got the impression that you had an abstract audience in mind... i.e. people you think may benefit. But, when one writes to that type of target, you cannot tailor your "voice". Writing for an audience that is sympathetic to Rand is different from writing for someone who has a vague idea about Rand. Even when writing to a narrow audience like those sympathetic to Rand, one has to tailor one's material to a purpose. A reader who wants to get information to bolster his arguments is different from one who wants to get something from the book to help him in his own work/life in (say) the next year or two.
  3. Who is the audience for this book?
  4. softwareNerd

    What is 'reason'?

    Humans notice causal chains when they're pretty young. This means, they start to figure out that when thing A happens followed by thing B, it is a common pattern, and if thing A happens followed by thing C it is probably coincidental. As they observe more closely, they start to understand the other elements in reality that are playing a role, and thus understand certain causal chains not just as "there's a pattern of correlation", but in a more detailed way: of seeing how that causal chain works and leads up to the observed effect. This faculty is reason.
  5. softwareNerd

    OCON 2018

    His "way of speaking" I think you're referring to his literary/Freudian approach to philosophy. While one might criticize it as being a flawed epistemology to bring to philosophy, it does have its place, and is actually the more common way day-to-day people get philosophy: from tales. Objectivists would do well to learn the approach and counters to the approach. On "what he brings", a speaker often needs a foil. Salmieri could have stood up and given a lecture with only his own content and it would have been far more bland, and he likely would not have made all the points he ended up making. A socratic approach can can bring out points that a lecture wouldn't; but, more importantly, the "drama" and tension is engaging. Most of the day-to-day dispersion of philosophy is done by the socratic approach: families and friends just chatting about stuff (not to mention TV). Objectivists would do well to practice the approach. Finally, Peterson is the "intellectual of the moment". I know Hillary supporters, who did not know he was associated with the right, but had read his NY Time bestseller book and loved/recommended it. To have him on the stage, to present some of his opinions (as weak as they may be), to an audience interested in intellectual trends, is a value in itself. The fact that many in that audience like some aspects about Petersen makes it even more valuable to see how his ground is so shaky on some topics. With that said, tastes differ. I suppose some in that paying audience "wanted their money back". I would guess that the majority thought it was worth the price of admission.
  6. softwareNerd

    OCON 2018

    There wouldn't have been a real discussion without him. It would have been Disneyworld, where everyone agrees with everyone else and never learns much new.
  7. softwareNerd

    OCON 2018

    That was a good panel-discussion. It was interesting to see the differences between the two sides get highlighted so clearly, to hear Petersen make counter-arguments on core topics that would be familiar to most of an OCON audience, and to see people debating things with civility.
  8. I've read a (different) book by Randi ages ago, and he was debunking irrational beliefs. I did not get the sense that he thought everyone was irrational.
  9. softwareNerd

    Global Warming

    My assumptions are: that the counter-arguments to to most dire predictions are all out there, and that these key arguments have been made, not just by groups with a mission against the AGW voices, but by scholars who are credible and who are generally respected in traditional academia If so, a Feyman would bring additional credibility, but probably no new counter-argument. Do you think the case he would bring has not been figured out? Or that it has not been made effectively? Or that it has not been made by someone with his credibility?
  10. softwareNerd

    Global Warming

    Yes, but it isn't clear if someone like him would make a difference to general public-opinion on the topic today.
  11. No. Unless I'm not getting your meaning here, I don't see why that would be. Do you see that basis in Rand's main essay ("Objectivist Ethics") on this topic?
  12. "Money can't buy happiness" is pretty good advice. Taken in the right sense, it is part of the message of Francisco's "money speech". Good advice (which could come from Objectivists and non-Objectivists ) would be things like "find / discover a purpose", and "live a life where you are honest to yourself, not living a pretense for others". I don't know Bourdain's story, but he has hinted that he was an alcoholic at some point, so he might have a history of psychological issues. It seems to me that sometimes when fame comes to people, they feel they do not deserve it. Knowing what they know about themselves, they see that with one or two twists of luck, they could easily have been obscure and unknown. I assume this leaves them with a huge sense of "impostor syndrome", which leaves one feeling that one is living one's life for others, and that it is all a sham that only exists in the imagination of those others. (Not saying Bourdain is an example of this though.) Still, stories like this aren't really big surprises.
  13. softwareNerd

    North Carolina Objectivists

    You could DM the people who have posted to this thread. That way, even if they do not visit the forum, they may have email notifications enabled for DMs.
  14. softwareNerd

    A Handmaid's Tale (2017 Series)

    Setting stories in some dystopian future is way more prevalent than setting them in some utopia. Quite often the ones that look like they're set in a utopia, are trying to show the negatives of that set-up. I'm willing to bet there's a good reason writers favor dystopias. Why do you like these stories?
  15. softwareNerd

    Are Pick Up Artists Legitimate Artists?

    Merriam Webster 1. skill acquired by experience, study, or observation the art of making friends 2. a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) arts plural : liberal arts 3. an occupation requiring knowledge or skill the art of organ building 4. the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects the art of painting landscapes; also work so produced 5. (archaic) a skillful plan 6. decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
×