Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

coirecfox

Regulars
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

coirecfox last won the day on May 23 2013

coirecfox had the most liked content!

About coirecfox

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 03/29/1986

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Coire Fox
  • School or University
    Purdue

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Let us look at the issue of wage regulation from the standpoint of individuals. You have two people who are concerned with their own well-being and able to think for themselves. One man has a need for the other man's labor, lets say, to clean up his yard so he can hone his skills as a brain surgeon. Now, the brain surgeon offers the man $3.50 an hour to the laborer to clean his yard. The laborer says, actually I'd like $4.50 and hour. They will reach a compromise and the laborer will be paid $4 an hour. Both come away happy. A beneficial mutual exchage has taken place between two men who are rational and capable of providing for their own survival. (If either one is not happy with what the other one offers, there will be no exchange.) There is a third person off to the side who says, "That's not fair." Why isnt is fair? Both parties have agreed to a mutually beneficial exchange. What is not fair about it? And what right would the third person have to get involved in the transaction?
  2. I just wanted to point out to a few people that infinity is not a number. It is a concept. It is used to represent the fact that the number series is non-terminating. You cannot count to infinity. If you say to yourself I am going to count to infinity, and then begin: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7--you have stopped at seven. In essence infinity has become seven. Not to say that infinity=seven, but that is where you stopped. "Infinity" is the potential number to which you could have gotten and "seven" is the actual. The concept 'infinity' bears no relation to things that exist, because everything that exists is finite.
  3. Allow me to say this: Before I started reading Objectivist literature, fiction and non-fiction, I was a very different person than I am now. Though I was always actively searching for a standard by which to live my life(morality), the content to which I was ascribing cause many problems for me rationally and emotionally, so much so that I went through a time of depression. I was being treated for it with Prozac when I first picked up Atlas Shrugged. By the time I was done with the book, my depression had begun to fade away because I knew I had found the object of my searching. I never took another Prozac again. People I knew asked me what had changed in me. I was generally happier. I started to get along with my parents. Granted, it has still taken me a long time to CONSCIOUSLY integrate the proper concepts into my daily life, but I had found a sense of deeper peace and understanding that everything would be okay if I just kept working on it. That is the short story of how Objectivism made my life better. I'll write the longer version in my memoirs after my two terms in the White House are over.
  4. Cole: ...I'm speechless. This: Accompanied with a picture of a Jewish internment camp from the Holocaust?!?!?
  5. Necessary: I know what you mean. I actually found the lack of philosophical discourse interesting. I do not think it detracts from the movie at all. I saw the movie almost as a piece of artwork: you cant have a lengthy philosophical discourse in a painting, it revolves around one theme. The movie takes the pleasure of ones own life and asserts it as GOOD, something I find lacking in our culture in general, except as almost a dirty secret between friends("Yeah we are going to help lots of people( and make a world of profit doing it, but shhhhhhhh).") Like I said, it also shows, though subtley, in the story of Bud's sister that a rational life of values yields more happiness than that of a slut obsessed with pleasure(note that SHE changes colors only after she does NOT have sex w/ that guy). I think that some things that are said in the movie can be taken as irrational, but any talk of emotions and feelings isolated from a full disscussion of their origins can be taken as irrational, and like I said before, that was not ultimately the point of the movie. Does that make sense?
  6. Hal, I have to disagree with you here. I would say that it is possible that SOME academic philosophers may use such questions in the manner you suggest. It has been my experience thusfar however that MOST philosophers do not use such questions in this manner. They do indeed use them to "undermine [rational and intelligent peoples'] self-confidence, and induce in them exactly the kind of uncertainty [he's] experiencing now." My current philosophy professor derives extreme pleasure from introducing such questions, watching students fumble around trying to answer it(because they have never been taught the proper method of analyzing the question) and then giving them a "possible" answer, to which if you dont immediately ascribe, you will be given a sternly disapproving look from the professor and a statement that your position is "interesting."
  7. That would be "Philosophy: Who needs it?" in...Philosophy: Who needs it?
  8. The first time I saw this movie (before I discovered philosophy) I didnt think much of it. I just finished watching it this evening and I must say that I was 'pleasantly' suprised. ... But seriously--this movie may be one of my new favorites. The way it depicts human pleasure as good seemed a refreshing change from some other movies of its day. And while the movie emphasizes the idea that pleasure is good, it does not do so in a hedonist manner. The girls dont become whores, and there are no orgys in the streets. Not only that but it has the classic story of Government oppression and a peoples' strugle against injustice. One of my favorite parts of this movie had to be the story of David/Bud's sister(played by Reese Witherspoon). She starts off as a slutty, dim angry young girl. By the end of the movie she is happy and studious, going off to college. The only element of the movie that may get in the way of enjoyment is how the kids get into their predicament in the first place, but once you get past that, the movie is a joy.
  9. coirecfox

    Debussy

    I had never heard anything else by him except Claire de Lune. Thanks for the info!
  10. coirecfox

    Debussy

    Does anyone here have an opinion of Debussy? I really like Claire de Lune.
  11. Has anyone seen this movie? It's out in selected cities, and the reviews look promising. I was wondering if it's worth the ten bucks to go see it.
  12. Hal, who is Robert Nozick and where did he disprove that such a suggestion is impossible?
×
×
  • Create New...