Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

MisterSwig last won the day on December 1

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Radical Animal

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Politics

Recent Profile Visitors

4518 profile views
  1. Trump is a bigger ally of capitalism than the Democratic Socialists. And, like I said, if Trump makes the next election a referendum on capitalism versus socialism, then I'm not voting for socialism, no matter how much fancy wrapping paper and bows the Democrats put on socialism.
  2. You have quite an imagination. I don't donate to political candidates. And I'm certainly not going to believe Trump is a capitalist based on one lame poll. Seriously? I guess you've never been to Trump's website.
  3. That's a laugh. You're talking about the President. I want him to have my email, so I can see what his people are saying in fundraising pitches. I was on Clinton's list for the same reason.
  4. I'm confused. Did I get subtly or not-so-subtly manipulated into favoring capitalism? You realize it's a fundraising tool, right? The woman calls herself a democratic socialist, and I'm the one falling for propaganda? Have you heard of welfare fraud or ID theft?
  5. Man is capable of imagining his life in the abstract. He can therefore anticipate effects of his future existence and judge himself for letting them happen or not letting them happen. If the effects are anti-man's life to an intolerable degree, he might be considered virtuous in commiting suicide and preventing them from happening, as a final act. This way his concrete existence can't be used to violate his abstract moral principles. We explored this problem a bit on my thread about spies who commit suicide.
  6. President Trump is taking a survey on socialism versus capitalism. If he makes this the big issue in 2020, I might have no choice but to vote for him. Obviously, he's not the best spokesman for capitalism, but I don't think I can vote for a Democrat this time around.
  7. Would you agree that a person might say he rejects an idea but then ultimately lets it guide his actions? For example, many people say they choose selflessness over selfishness, but then they only give 10% of their income to charity, only devote one of seven days per week to worshipping God (and typically only an hour or two at that), and many cross out most of the miracles in the Bible in order to believe scientific evidence. So while they talk a big talk about having faith and all that jazz, they don't act on it much, because when they do, they die.
  8. Is "man" short for man's life? Is "anti-man" a synonym for "sub-man"? I'm having trouble following your line of thought. The concepts keep changing on me with no warning or explication.
  9. I basically agree with the above, if by "longevity" you mean the continuation or perpetuation of life. Are you trying to make a connection to procreation?
  10. The thing is, man can't act as subman, just as he can't act as superman. Man can only act as man. He can only act in accordance with his nature. Surviving, for man, means surviving qua man. It doesn't negate values for a man to merely stay alive, because he cannot merely stay alive without values. If he negates them, he dies. Objectivism offers an idea of how to live properly. But, even if Objectivism were 100% accurate, living improperly wouldn't mean negating value. It would mean living less than a morally ideal existence, but still within the limits of life-preserving action qua man.
  11. I would agree that a mature man, an adult human being with volition, is not wholly automatized. He does make his own purpose. (I don't know what "goal-directed purpose" means.) But he must also choose the purpose that he makes and willfully coordinate his movements toward that end. Furthermore, because man has this faculty of creativity and imagination, he might make and choose an impossible purpose, unachievable in reality. His standard of value will be proportionally impossible. Depending on his loyalty to an impossible purpose, he might very well die or kill himself in pursuit of it, because the unreal cannot be gained in the world of the real. A man whose final purpose is reaching the afterlife will value that which ends his present life. A man whose final purpose is keeping his present life will value that which preserves it.
  12. They sound like a bunch of harmless wankers. I'd worry more about the EPA shutting off the Ghostbusters' containment system.
  13. Nuts and bolts are both parts. To complete the metaphor you would need to include relevant actions, like tightening or loosening the nuts and bolts. Is it greater than the sum of its moving parts?
  14. I'm saying that we don't have the fundamental knowledge of life, not even today. But we are closer now to this basic understanding than people were fifty years ago. Unfortunately, even the current pioneers in biology and cognitive science suffer under bad philosophical direction and terminology. For example, I only recently discovered Bernhard Hommel, and I sympathize with some of his research-based ideas, but he is still an academic wrapped up in academic jargon and deterministic philosophical concepts of man as machine, which he probably got from Hume, whom he referenced in a lecture I watched.
  15. She admitted as much in her arguments addressing abortion. For example, in A Last Survey (1975), she said it was arguable whether a late-term fetus was a life. I still think her definition of life is basically very good, but she clearly had issues applying it to man, perhaps due to the lack of biological knowledge about the fetus (and newborns!) back then. Not even the Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, felt comfortable taking a position on the late-term issue, and they left it to the States. We still argue about the nature and beginning of human life to this day, as Objectivists. So I don't understand why you're objecting to this point. Do you think Rand possessed this important knowledge but withheld it from us? I'm saying some of this knowledge has since been discovered or proven, and it should inform our view of man's life.
×
×
  • Create New...