Greebo

All of this would make perfect sense right up to the point where the evidence of our existence very strongly shows that human beings do have the freedom to make choices, to change their behaviors, to chose to think and act on those thoughts, or to chose to let others do their thinking for them and be told what to do. Objectivism rejects Hard Line Determinism. The three Axioms that serve as the foundation for Objectivism are simple: 1) Existence exists. 2) Existence is Identity 3) Consciousness exists If Consciousness does not exist, then how are you able to contemplate whether or not consciousness exists? Certainly our brains - the centers of our consciousness, are made up of chemicals, but to suggest that one has no choice flies in the face of the fact that every day you make thousands of choices - you choose to get out of bed, you choose what you will eat for breakfast, you choose what to wear, and you (specifically you in this case) choose to then surrender your freedom of choice to the notion that you don't have a choice. If you have no choice, if you have no consciousness, if you have no self - then you are not a living being. At which point, the objectivist stops considering you, because the Axiom of Consciousness says that we *are* living beings with conscious choices to be made. I'd tell you to have a nice day, but you don't have a choice in the matter. So --- bye...

Lincoln said he would allow slavery to continue if it would preserve the union and prevent war. Prior to Lincoln's Inauguration, seven states seceded. By seceding, the union was broken before Lincoln had any ability to prevent it. How did he lie? Your logic is faulty.

Both, actually:

You may find this thread of interest. It deals with the morality of transgender issues. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...;hl=transgender

Yes - that is to say - you can choose not to think rationally. Again, by think I mean "think rationally". To be the product of something is to be the result of something. Science (pure science) could not exist without the surety of knowledge of epistemology, or the understanding of existence that comes from Metaphysics. Without reason, knowledge and existence, science would be random flailing. No, I meant it literally. Again, to think is to think rationally. Interaction with reality is passive. If you sit perfectly motionless and do absolutely nothing, existence continues to exist, and you along with it, and your interaction by existing continues whether you try to do anything with it or not. Capitalism is the application of rational thinking to the trade of value between two entities. Just as the rational thinking scientist was able to experiment before the scientific method was fully defined and understood, so business for mutual benefit was able to take place before the Capitalistic Method was fully understood. When a scientist accepts and implements the Scientific Method fully, he validates his research by founding it on sound, rational principles. When the businessman accepts and implements Capitalism fully - or at least as fully as possible (foregoing the power of pull to the fullest extent possible), he in turn validates his business by founding it on sound, rational principles. A medicine man may be a sort of experimenter, but he is not a scientist, he is a witch-doctor who attributes his success to mystic powers, not deduction. A mobster is a sort of businessman, but he is not a capitalist, he is a looter who does business by force. So - is Capitalism the philosophy that supports business? Or the product of a rational philosophy as it applies to the men of action, as science applies to the men of thought? And again, the scientific method is a product of, in part, epistemology. 49 is the product of 7 times 7. 49 is not a part of 7, 7 is a part of 49. A child is the product of its parents - but a child becomes independent of its parents. Likewise, science is not a part of epistemology, epistemology is a part of science. But as DavidOdden said, the specialized knowledge and equipment associated with it make science separate from epistemology.

You can choose to not think. You can't choose to stop interacting with reality *and* remain alive, so yes, your interaction with reality is passive. You exist, reality exists, it is, you do not have a choice in that matter other than to choose to cease to exist. Thinking isn't acting. When you think about moving your body, you first must put your thought into action. Rand advocated thinking before acting, as opposed to acting before thinking, or acting without thinking. too late Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and understanding. It is the study of what constitutes knowledge and truth, and how one knows that such is knowledge and truth. It is one branch of philosophy. Science is based on the pure application of reason to what is already established as knowledge to determine new knowledge. Science does not concern itself with how it knows its knowledge is knowledge - science concerns itself with adding TO that knowledge, fundamentally accepting the method of how one proves that knowledge to be true in its basis. Science is, therefore, not separate from philosophy, but a product of it. Without the philosophy to tell you know you know what you know, how to see that existence exists, and how to apply reason and logic to what you know and what exists, you could not use the scientific method. As stated before, you can not choose not to interact with reality. You can only choose not to think while doing so. The broken unit (child) above is not unable to interact with reality, but unable to think. Science is the intellectuals product of rational philosophy as capitalism is the business mans result.

I was curious as to the nature of the "Premium Forum", so seeing a link that says, "What is the Premium Forum?", I clicked it. I then got an error message: Is this actually the case, or is it possible that, without permission to access the Premium Forum, one does not have the rights to read the thread that defines what the Premium Forum is? I appear to have been caught with a paraducks, and its making me quackers.

I understand, but I definitely do not like that we've given the mystics a label which derives from what Objectivists are: Rational! Ah well, it'll take me some time to get used to substituting "rationalist" for "witch doctor" in my head, but I'll manage. Thanks!

Can someone please explain "rationalism" and why it seems to be used in a negative sense when I see it? As it derives from rational, I would have thought it to be a positive term in Objectivist terms.

Well, if you can't understand it, it must be good - clearly its very intellectual! Excuse me a moment, I've mislaid my gallstone...

I had the same thought.

I think its fair to say that such an animals existence is pointless to mankind - but does that render it completely pointless? Is an animal of no use to man completely devoid of meaning? I don't see how that can be considered possible, when you've implicitly agreed that "The top priority of any instinct / genetic driven animal / plant is the survival of its genes, simply because all lifeforms that had other priorities died out and did not reproduce (as much)." An animal can not be pointless or meaningless and also have priorities, because priorities in this sense means being greatest in importance to that living thing, and if something is important, it follows that the importance derives from some meaning. What meaning? As Ms. Rand states, the purpose of life is to live. Just as man is an end unto himself, an animal is an end unto itself. Without life no consciousness could evolve, and without consciousness, man could not think. Therefore, all living things have a fundamental point, and thus have an inherent value.

Mrwooowl!

Yeah, where and when. If its anywhere nearby, I'll make getting to see it happen!

I have actually already read this, and I thought his claim that "some objectivists say that [that which promotes life] is good" was mistaken. What I remember Ms. Rand saying was that Good and Evil can only have meaning for living things - that a stone simply is - and that no living being can act in a way that is contrary to life and survive. As I recall hearing it, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, the conclusion was something like "that which promotes life can therefore be concluded to be good". I seem to recall "self evident" being in there somewhere too. So if addressed with that criticism, I would say that the critic got Rand's view wrong. Life isn't good - Good and Evil are concepts that only have validity FOR life, stones don't have judgment systems. Those things in nature that act contrary to growing - or living - stagnate and die, and cease to be life. If Good has a definition, it can only be, therefore, that Good is Pro-Life, while Evil is Anti-Life. For a single living being, what promotes its own life is what is good. Further, as only man can choose to act in a manner contrary to his survival, it is only to man that Good and Evil have any significance. To the plant, the deer that eats it is evil, but neither the plant, nor the deer, can act in a way other than to be eaten or to eat. The man, however, who lives by a code which does not respect another man's life, invalidates his own right to have his life respected. Therefore, his code is detrimental to his life - it Evil, in that works to defeat himself. Ok - how's that for a n00b?

I read it some years ago, and I agree- the book does have some value. Covey reaches many valid conclusions despite his frequently flawed premises.

Is a performance of a play physical? Certainly, the manuscript is physical - but what if I'm edidic (I THINK thats the right word - photographic memory), and can watch a play and go to my own theater, teach it to my performers, and then perform the play again? I haven't copied anything materially, but i have copied the product of the mind - the performance of the play - which isn't mine to do without paying for it.

In the interest of my own objectivity, I am interested in finding any articles which attempt to disprove Objectivism. I have seen plenty of emotionally based criticisms of Ms. Rand and Objectivism, and plenty that criticize it because its "unsympathetic" or "greedy", as well as those based on false assumptions. What I am interested in, however, is a truly philosophical attempt to disprove all or part of Objectivism's core. My reason for wanting this is so that I can evaluate the counter-argument and determine, for myself, whether I find them convincing, and (operating on the assumption that I will not in fact be convinced, prepare effective counter-counter-arguments for them. I have read the rules, and I know the object of this forum is the promotion of Objectivism. I hope this post isn't seen as contrary to that aim - I really do not think I'm going to find anything to convince me that Objectivism is wrong, but one must consider any rational or pseudo-rational argument and form ones own conclusions, right?

I know I'm new here, and I know this thread is kind of old and if reviving an old thread is bad form, I apologize in advance. I am, however, confused by this concept, and seek clarification. How can one occasionally, selectively commit to rationality? I sense a contradiction. If one is only occasionally rational, then one must, by definition, occasionally be irrational. A person who is rational and irrational is a contradiction.

Is that all they want? Cause while I don't, I could chip in a share for partial ownership, if we could make the island self-sustaining and independent. What about the Libertarian idea of taking over Vermont peaceably just by moving there? I bet we could co-exist reasonably well. ETA: you missed a 0 - its $100 Mil.

Answer to Q1: 38 Answer to Q2: Circa College Years Like Cheryl Taggart, I have believed much of what Objectivism teaches without being consciously aware of the definition (Cheryl's reconciliation with Dagny). Like Hank Reardon, I struggled for many years to accept what I was being told, and that my inability to accept it was wrong. I remember very clearly when I was 19, and going through Boot Camp & A-School (2ndary training) up in old Great Mistakes, one weekend I went on an outing to play football, that turned out to be organized by a Christian organization. Simple plan - go to the base, pick up a bunch of dumb kids, host them for the weekend, play football on Sat, hold a prayer meeting, and take em to Church on Sunday, to "save them", and I remember on that field, WANTING to be able to believe in Jesus the way they talked about him, wanting that kind of surety that they had, but absolutely unable to accept on a fundamental level the contradictions inherent in Christianity. And I knew what they were better than most - my father is a Lutheran Minister. I was raised in the church. I struggled again for years during a deep immersion in Amway (the Britt line - INTENSELY Christian Capitalism). Every time I went to a "function", I was largely right on board with what they taught - when it came to business, capitalism, ethics, morality, etc. -- until the inevitable praise to God, glory to Jesus, we couldn't do it without the Lord. Some times I tried to believe, again, other times I just sat and suffered through it. In my late 20's and early 30's I finally gave up trying to be someone I'm not, and accepted my inability to believe, and became a devoted Agnostic (and I remain one, but that's a different topic). Today, like Cheryl, I finally know the name for how I see the world. Fortunately, my wife is NOT a nihilist, so jumping off a bridge is definitely not in my immediate future.

Hi, My name's Greebo, and I'm late in discovering Objectivism. Hi Greebo It's been about 2 months since I first started reading - well, listening to - Atlas Shrugged. A friend of mine recommended it to me because I was talking about some business ventures I'm pursuing, and how I enjoy "empire building" style games. At first, I didn't know if I'd like it - so I asked two people who's opinions I value very much in forecasting whether I'll appreciate something or not. My cousin, because he frequently shares my tastes, and my father, because he doesn't. (Suffice it to say that my father is my own personal Dr. Robert Stadler, and leave it at that...) Thanks to Audible, I have been able to enjoy Atlas Shrugged for the last two months now during my commute, and I have now moved onto "For the New Intellectual" in the car, and "The Fountainhead" in book form at home. I have been voraciously reading up on both Ms. Rand and Objectivism, and its criticisms, for weeks now, but have only just discovered this particular site. After half an hour of reading the ethics and debate forums, I knew I'd found another home on the net. So - glad to be here, and I hope I won't cause too many of you to as I riddle the forum with about Objectivism. (Oh, and, when are the Objectivists forming their own State and seceding from the Union?)