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.

Craig24

Regulars
  • Content count

    454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Craig24

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 09/19/65

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Pennsylvania
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Real Name Craig
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

4221 profile views
  1. It contains "mystic muck"? That's all she said? Well that's interesting. Do you know about Indian mysticism?
  2. How do you know that Ayn Rand did not undertand Indian mysticism?
  3. Why would I do that? You are the one asserting that Objectivists don't understand the views of mystics/subjectivists. You need to prove it.
  4. Do you understand what the mystics and subjectivists are saying? Can you summarize some of their views and show us how Objectivists don't understand those views?
  5. You are very welcome.
  6. Objectivist Ed Powell has written a paper against the open borders immigration position of other Objectivists (Binswanger, Tracinski, Biddle, Bernstein, Duke). This raises the question: Does a foreigner have a right to cross an international border? Powell says no. Powell says the burden of proof that any applicant for entry is not a threat to the freedom or security of the country lies with the applicant. The paper is well written, the position well argued. For reference: Binswanger's essay and Biddle's essay
  7. Dustin86, I provided a simple illustration of something being objectively true even though there is disagreement with that truth: The earth is round and there is a flat earth society. Was that not enough to prove that objective reality does not not depend on agreement?
  8. So what? People disagree, big deal. It's objectively true that the earth is round but there is a flat earth society. What are we supposed to do? Pretend it's not objectively true because of those nut jobs?
  9. Reminds me of this scene from Star Trek TNG
  10. Peikoff/Binswanger 2016... let's make it happen.
  11. Blame philosophy. We are told from birth the government is your provider. That's a crude philosophic political view taught to and accepted by most. Dr Hurd needs to clarify a few things and it would be fair to ask him if the poor, for example, should be blamed for their poverty and a government that helps to cause it. He better answer a resounding "NO!" and explain himself. It would also help if he understood and communicated the fact the Donald Trump is no capitalist of any kind and that he's the wrong vehicle through which to change the crooked system. On the other hand, even if we want to sympathize with the poor and blame the system more than them for their situation, our anti welfare statist position makes us a big target for the welfare state advocates who resort to smears (racist, greedy, cruel..). If we were to write an essay on why politicians are crooks what should we say that's different from the essay in the OP?
  12. Being poor is a choice for who? Why is choosing to be poor irrational? How does choosing to be poor prevent a person from being rational enough to be educated?
  13. Why is that the only way to educate them? I've never heard of this before.
  14. Ask the people providing the education. What am I? A know it all?
  15. You are going in circles. What if someone decides to educate these poor people?