fountainhead777

I work the same way. A semester with 19 credit hours is fine. But when I get to that review week during exams where there are no concrete assignments its like depressurization and I just lose motivation without the structure. I think you have a good idea of how to work around it though. I think as long as you are conscious of it and work at it, it's no problem.

Another thing I've noticed about the scenario is that if Hitler's future is predetermined then all events are, including your choice to kill baby Hitler or not. Man these contradiction games sure are useful...

What interesting discussion. Hell, you extrapolated the entire argument. If we accept illogical premises we kill baby Hitler. The end. Again why defend a pointless idea and discussion. Also I enjoy how you ignore half of the criticisms on here that have beaten your shaky points to death.

Lets make this question more fun for Objectivist's who think they should answer. God tells you that a baby will kill millions in current times and that you should murder this infant. Do you? That's about what these scenarios amount to. They have no value because they have no place in reality.

I guess the easiest way to do some form of revolution is to get most of the top 10% which pays the majority of taxes and much of the middle classes to refuse to pay taxes and refuse to sanction the waste and violation of rights by our government.

We can know basic simple events relatively shortly before they happen, i.e. gravity. We cannot know the minds and free choices of others, thousands of others, which gave rise to Hitler. Why do you feel the need to justify your impossible scenario saying that we can know a baby's nature and choices 40 years before it's done its worst. People even gave you intelligent and actual occurring scenarios yet you ignore them for the impossible. And here's my answer to your B.S. scenario: I would become close to the baby and direct it's will and energy towards productive rationally self-interested tasks and let it be happy and benefit the future instead of accepting determinism and causelessly murdering a child for no reason.

Philosophies are made for life. Your hypotheticals have no place in reality or real life. Therefore you learn nothing through this.

So this scenario is less ridiculous because you are sighted in on a scientist, not a military target, and have enough definition and reaction speed to see the button, know what it does, and be able to shoot the guy in the roughly second he falls. But wait sniper bullets have less than instantaneous velocity so by the time you realized and/or fired the action would be done and you would have accomplished nothing. Also these ridiculous questions answer nothing since they are impossible. A man's life is his own, precognition is nonexistent, violence cannot be initiated but can only be used in self defense.

That would be true if we only differed in genetics from animals causing discrete constant differences. But our reasoning ability and high memory that allows us free will changes the amount of intelligence we may have by how much we exert our brains and how productive we are. To animals there are limited capacities for their abilities and in most cases they do not push their abilities further than how they originally developed. Humans, however, can learn and develop any skill by choice. You could focus on abstract philosophy, mathematics, literature, your physique, etc. They all require time and investment past an individual's slight genetic predispositions.

Yeah but a mystical being is not a likely answer and still it is impossible to prove. A creator is the one theory that people believe in with no evidence. Any theory in any other field to even be considered there would need to be some basis or justification. The closest thing to a justification for the existence of God is the absence of other justifications because we have not yet approached that level of knowledge. Also I think that the answer to a huge question of existence is not an answer that was theorized before the bronze age or existence of science. And your first supposedly non contradictory statement can never be fully answered because as long as it can be discerned the something that created the something must have come from something forever and forever.

Faith and God contradicts reason and reality thus it is impossible to prove. Faith the main tool of all belief in Gods since reason is useless for such a purpose is the antithesis to reason and thought and damns the mind you sue to survive; that's why.

Yeah but honestly tell me how things that are outside of existence and unprovable could matter in any way whatsoever or have any effect on my existence. Your idea, if accepted just tells us how pointless a deist God is and how pointless the argument for a God is.

So basically this topic is to nitpick and try to take issue with things because of how you yourself word them. A=A is a simple reduction of basic nature. You are you, not someone else. A computer is a computer not a saxophone. Every Object has properties and characteristics that are do not change arbitrarily. They behave based on their properties that is all it means. Space, time, matter and energy are present with every object or A but these vary with each object based on its properties. They do not change arbitrarily. Also A=A is very simplified because objects have many identifications with hierarchies to the way they are defined. Your 2's are all in fact 2's but they have been defined wiht other properties so in that way they are not the same, not disproving A=A. As for three people talking we are not 3 A's. You're a Mikael who is nitpicking with the most simplified version of a statement that simply means things exist in reality with set properties that they do not violate. I'm a fountainhead777 trying to get you to understand something that you should have comprehended from reading. Then there's a Timbo who said little but posted anyways. I would recommend rereading the Virtue of Selfishness and going through here for your definitions.

I just read both graphic novels in about 3 days and was completely blown away. I got chills at points. I do not think another graphic novel has ever been as well done. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes comics, graphic novels, Batman, or Objectivism. As for Miller being Objectivist, I think he is like most fairly popular "Objectivists". He shows a somewhat mixed view especially with his placement of the Question in TDKSA.

Guys, music is linked to personal taste and experience. I highly dislike pop for the simplicity of structure and relatively low speed of the songs. Also many of his songs do not reach me and evoke any emotion. Some songs of Jackson's which were more Rock oriented I could enjoy at times but there were very few. I will say that in his earlier music Jackson was fairly good not my cup of tea but I do not wish to push my views on any of you.

The terms left and right mean liberalism and conservatism respectfully. The left just means wanting change, the right just means opposing it. So technically as Objectivism is not the status quo it is impossible for Objectivism to be subsumed by the right. The Democrat and Republican parties have shifted back and forth from left to right over time so defining them as left or right is somewhat vague. Our politics are subsumed by neither party. Technically Objectivism is to the left as it advocates a lot of change but it is not the current popular left so making this the ideal to more is the goal.

Mistakes are easily corretced when rational because you explain your side and one will realize the error of their ways. Your definition does nto make sense to me because I cannot have concern for others without having a self. Altruism means unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Meaning you gain nothing from that concern, no values, no enjoyment, nothing for your self. The term does not make sense because true concern for others cannot exist absent the self. And your term is already defined in benevolence and other words. You keep saying Rand redefined the term but this is the existing definition. That nature of selflessness implies a sacrifice because it presupposes no net positive value to self. And you still fail to acknowledge that your argument is pointless because your only disagreement with Objectivism is a definition not held by Objectivism alone.

I ma happy for other people i value but if I saw a complete stranger who I could not identify with or share any common things in our individual selves then I would feel little or nothing. Even that empathy is a result of some system of valuing based in my self. Note that you said this varies among people. That is because it occurs in relation to shared values and personal tastes, connections to people, not some genetic predisposition. None of this is altruism. Why do you keep trying to find a way to redefine things so that you can disagree?

Because it is rational self-interest in Objectivism. You cannot take the lives of others without negating your own right to life. All rights are made to keep the ability to live life freely. One's life is one's property alone and no one else may justly dispose of it. Rights are absolutes not to be altered by emergencies. Additionally I would figure on a desert island two minds would be better than one for survival as long as there are any resources to use. Cannibalism is a temporary solution at best and does little to benefit your life except in the most obscure circumstances.

How is God's existence necessary to your survival? My reasoning mind has been of much greater aid than faith in a supernatural contradiction. Attempt to survive on faith alone without reason; attempt to cure your sorrow with faith in God alone. For me what cures any temporary sorrow is knowing that I, through my own mind, am fit to survive and be competent. As for meaning God presupposes more questions than answers. If God is the meaning of your life then what is the meaning of God? The meaning of your life is precisely your life. The actions you take to perpetuate your life and support it give it meaning. My problem with God and religion is that they put too much emphasis on the beginnings and ends of life. It is the entire journey that matters, the accumulation of knowledge, the growth and development and they way you live your life that matter, not what exists outside of existence or your life.

I do not get the point of this debate at all. From what I gathered you don't really disagree with Objectivism in the least, you just feel a need to further redefine the term altruism in a more complex manner. It seems kind of pointless to me. Of course you will not infringe on others if it is of little consequence to you just out of benevolence and the lack of sacrifice involved. Also if you did put yourself in others shoes and thought of them as rational individuals you woudl probably realize they do not wish you to sacrifice either and if they did, they would likely not be worth your time and effort if they wished your sacrifice to their needs. I think the best statement on this is that "There are no conflicts of interest among rational men"

my counter-argument would be that a painter does not contradict his painting. God contradicts the universe by being supernatural and thus cannot coexist with the natural universe without invalidating its rules and laws.

Volunteering is not explicitly anti=Objectivist. it only is non-Objectivist when it is something you care little for but do for others. I did volunteer work but it was for a cause I liked and i benefited from having a personal stake in it. If you were volunteering at something you cared about just emphasize your passion for it and how it relates to your future in the medical field, not your selflessness.

Yeah. I guess the guy wanted to pit his mind against nature...he lost I suppose.

And people were agreeing with her. Jeez this is ridiculous.