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.

JASKN

Admin
  • Content count

    2473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JASKN

  1. Pittsburgh is almost as convenient as Columbus. If I attend, people need to add their internet aliases to their name tags so that I can recognize them in person.
  2. Peikoff is asked the question in a podcast, "Can a gay person be a true Objectivist?": Link Binswanger does not talk about homosexuality nor Ayn Rand's friends in 100 Voices, but he mentioned a blurb in an email to the Objectivism Study Group list in 1991: I present this only as a shortcut to others' judgements that her early viewpoint is not important. As a gay fan of Rand's, I understand an interest in her views on "homosexuality" (already an old fashioned term, amazingly). But, Rand's best ideas have also brought me to the point of judging for myself and not caring what Rand thought, since she was wrong. I'm not too concerned with her living in ignorance (as most were about gays) and influenced by the ideas of her times, as a fallible human just like us.
  3. Two basic precursors to learning are your own personal interests (for picking what to learn about) and your approach to new ideas. For maximum brain flow, go with what interests you most. For maximum brain saturation, question everything honestly until the answer becomes part of you (and even then, question from time to time). My biggest personal setbacks to learning were/are rationalism and becoming emotionally charged about potential errors in my thinking or conclusions.
  4. I think Objectivism is radical in its framing of morality outside of a religious context and its idea of selfish morality. That 3% strikes me as accurate. I guess atheism isn't radical if your expectations are higher for the timeframe of humanity, but religion is still everywhere, and so atheism could still be called radical.
  5. To dream_weaver's point, when just 3% of the US population identifies as atheist, by Oxford's definition Objectivism is radical, or "characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive."
  6. I have personally not experienced any kind of success convincing another person about the logic behind Objectivism and why the philosophy is The Way, The Truth, and The Light. Maybe it's too wordy for most people when presented that way, maybe there aren't enough social scenarios where people accept deeper conversations, I don't know the reason, but a brick wall is hit every time. During the past couple of years I've given up the "lectures" altogether and replaced them with one-off comments in normal conversation, where I really try to think about everything from as realistic a standpoint as I can and then take a second to sum it up succinctly with a somewhat philosophical-style comment, delivered in my own words/formulation for the conversation only. People have really responded to this method, it feels like magic compared to the old strategy. At the same time, I've focused more on my own life than on an Objectivst agenda (I'm part of a trend, I guess?), with several benefits: a better life, from which to draw examples, and a better understanding of the purpose of philosophy, and why someone would follow principles to begin with, from which I can formulate my summations. I'm beginning to think there is no other way to get people to legitimately change their views. There has to be something to look at in real life for an "aha!" moment to happen. More emphasis should be placed on Rand's life success and enduring influence as support for the validity of her philosophy. More Objectivists should emphasize their own real life benefits following a stellar philosophy.
  7. Fine with me. Seriously, though, it can't be so far off so as to contradict Objectivism explicitly.
  8. The main reason to republish posts into threads at OO.com is the potential for member discussion, not so much for the value of the content itself. ARI, for example, publishes content drawing obvious conclusions for most regulars at this forum, aiming instead at a less versed public. There needs to be an angle of contention to make the auto-reposts worthwhile. Dr. Hurd's political content may not be the best example, simply because it is stupid and thus makes for a bad starting point for discussion.
  9. Dr. Hurd's posts are not automatically posted, they need to be approved by a moderator first. I don't read his posts on politics because I don't think he's got great insights, but I did approved this one. Taking this post alone, the worst offense as I see it is that he speaks favorably of Trump. Am I right to assume the rest of his political writing plays into others' criticism of him?
  10. Welcome to the forum, Maria.
  11. Didn't, and it would have been Ohio.
  12. My emotion is telling me I should have ticked against Trump, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
  13. You might try expanding your reading of Rand, and giving her ideas some extra consideration.
  14. Abstained, they both make my skin crawl. I don't see an advantage of keeping one of them out over the other, but if I did I still wouldn't want to vote for either of them. Johnson isn't good enough nor has a big enough public "blip" for me to make a statement vote. The worst part of this season was the added public division. I don't know the greater significance, if any, but at minimum it was stupid for everyone to spend 3 months hating on people they got along with before.
  15. On one side, you think poor people don't want stuff, so they're not to blame for an expanded welfare state. But on the other side, you think we're only talking about poor people, because they're the only people who want stuff...? I do think rich(er) people are also to blame, for a lack of good principles and enabling the lazy.
  16. Dr. Hurd does not implicitly blame anyone, he explicitly says "we," to include all citizens. Give me a break. Arguing that welfare can't be changed because "crony capitalists" have all the power is what I call crying about being poor. Does this mean you believe that people will choose to roll over and die if welfare dried up?
  17. The underlying assumption here is that government welfare is more fundamental than capitalism, which is not true. If left alone, people would overwhelmingly choose their own wellbeing over the welfare of others. Only the government can enforce welfare, whereas capitalism would exist without coercion. "Crony capitalism" isn't a thing, there is only capitalism and freedom, or welfare and enslavement. A true "crony capitalist" isn't a capitalist, he's just another version of a welfare statist. Crying about being poor in America makes me roll my eyes so far back in my head it hurts. Venezuela would be a better example. But both are the same: the poor (actual, as with Venezuela, or perceived, as with the US) do not choose freedom, they choose continued looting. Even though people are literally dying in the streets, the solution isn't continued looting.
  18. That's an awful lot of conflating and oversimplification coming from someone complaining about conflating and oversimplification. If I hear another millennial whine about being poor...
  19. Salt is a Christian reference ("Matthew 5:13 You are the salt of the earth"). I would have found it surprising if Huckabee would have drawn a comparison between Trump and Caesar with some kind of explicit detail, but the transcript is standard Christian mumbo jumbo, referencing itself more than what's going on today.
  20. Was that the actual verbiage??
  21. I took "we" to mean all citizens. Who are the crony capitalists, and what do they do?
  22. Where were the poorest and "weakest" in society mentioned?
  23. Hi Amelia, welcome to the forum. This thread was started by another new user a while back -- If inclined to, feel free to start one of your own, or simply reply to this one with a little bit about how you've come to know about Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
  24. As Objectivism notes, everyone leads his life by a philosophy whether he knows it or not, and Rand wasn't the first or last person to favor most aspects of Objectivism. That means there are plenty of people who will jive with you without necessarily identifying why. Then, even after you might think or say, "Wow, we both like this, like doing that together, like how we respond to this and that around each other, perhaps/likely because of these reasons," most moments apart from those explicit identification moments will be enjoyed by how they are naturally experienced. You'll usually just laugh with someone and enjoy it, without identifying explicitly why and only then enjoying youself. Many people are compatible with Objectivists without identifying as such explicitly themselves. It might help to think of it another way, too: Would you automatically become involved with someone romantically simply because she identifies as an Objectivist?
  25. Of course there is still racism today. Is that disputed by anyone? Is racism the most outrageous part of this news story? Or, is the worse news that rights are being violated yet again by the government forcing people to stop their (alleged) racism? Good luck getting rid of racism as long as your culture thinks it's OK to violate rights.