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.

IchorFigure

Regulars
  • Content count

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About IchorFigure

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status Single
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

3624 profile views
  1. Thank you. On the one hand I am happy that Trump's policies are making immigration big news. Even though I disagree with most of what he's done, immigration has been a dead issue for years. (Remember when Republicans lost some ground in the previous election and for about two weeks immigration reform was sort of being considered?) On the other hand I watch the protests - I see the gross cliche clenched fist symbols being employed, and the usual "love wins" type of crap, and I wish the opportunity weren't being squandered by misguided hippies. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there is such an outpouring of support for immigrants and refugees, but I just wish it weren't the Occupy types leading the charge. They don't deserve to.
  2. Hi everyone. I haven't been an active poster on this forum since I was younger, but I thought that I could tell everyone about my Objectivist oriented immigration FB page. I started this page because I think that the uniquely Objectivist viewpoint of individualism is missing from immigration discussion. To use some typical examples, the Left talks about some mushy notion of "love" as though it's a winning immigration argument, while the Right talks about "American Jobs" and deterministic qualities like voting demographics and I.Q. tests. If you agree with me that the individual needs more consideration check out my page, thank you https://www.facebook.com/IndividualistsForImmigration/
  3. I do not read or speak Hebrew so I haven't a clue what this debate is about, but Youtuber Anochi recently uploaded a debate of Yaron Brook's: http://youtu.be/FTGCd-q1xYY Maybe someone could tell us more about what the debate considers?
  4. I have been meaning to re-read AS so maybe I'll try to sign up.
  5. The fact you even use the word "excommunicated" just signifies you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
  6. Ok I realize this is a forum for Objectivist topics and this really isn't related so feel free to junk this topic if the mods don't think it's pertinent. But I just think an Objectivist audience might be able to offer better more first-handed answers. So my environment science class very quickly glossed offer this idea of biomagnification. It is the process by which toxins "magnify" as they accumulate going further up the food chain. This is a very common and basic subject I gather, but the content in class and even in the book gives very little info about how it's supposed to work. My question is this: why is it only the harmful things like mercury "biomagnify" in the food chain? Why is it that components that could enhance a living things health don't get "magnified" as well?
  7. That little detail isn't as "controversial" to me as the fact these movies suck period.
  8. Who else is going to be watching this on livestream? It might be cool to all join in on the chat or something.
  9. Oh yep thanks SWN thats what I was looking for And yep I get what you mean Nicky. Actually I don't even think that heiroglyphs were 100% representational in terms of image = word for the thing it is. I just wanted to show it to a friend who was interested in the history of languages.
  10. Hmm no that's not it. Hands and mountains was just my example I don't think she refers to those exactly. I was so sure it was in ITOE but now that I can't find it I'm not positive where it was. She did refer to eastern languages in some way.
  11. Hi, I don't mean to sound lazy but I have been trying to locate a piece by Rand's where she talks about how language probably evolved. I could have sworn it was in ITOE but the appendix hasn't helped. She writes about how ancient writings began with perceptual symbols of things like hands and mountains, and then became more abstract as letters representing sounds. Does anyone know where this particular bit is located? I'm grateful for any help thanks.
  12. The trichotomy of those 3 also serve to pose as useful contrasts to the uniqueness of Objectivism. Subjectivism is focused on the subject. Intrincisism is focused on the object. Objectivism is focused on the relationship between the subject and the object. So looking at it this way you can see the essential differences in classyifying them like this, is to break them down to what their target of the philosophy is aimed at. On the subject, on the object, or on the relationship between them. Like Grames said, this is not to say that in real-world practice that intrincisism doesn't become subjective.
  13. I don't know this is the first time I've heard of her. I went to her website and read a summary of her book. It states she's an atheist, but her book is all about how the liberal media is supposedly trying to quash Christianity. At the same time she has a photo of herself reading Atlas Shrugged at the top site banner. So pretty clear she has some mixed ideas going on...
  14. This is a good question I've asked myself. I'm not sure that I'm the best person to answer. The way it seems to me is that intrincisim is just one offshoot of subjectivism, so really the two opposites are objective or subjective. (Because what those intrinsic values are ultimately have to come back to your or someone else's whims) I'm supposing that while that is true, perhaps what she was going after with these classifications was only to identify the 3 most fundamentally expressed types. I'm interested to see what others have to say.
  15. Here is a great clip from an MSNBC discussion panel where the host S.E. Cupp calls out Obama's recent "you didn't build that" speech. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/17/se_cupp_to_msnbc_panel_obama_is_a_collectivist.html Better yet she states it precisely as collectivism and throws in a relevant Ayn Rand quote. Definately refreshing and gutsy.