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.

Gramlich

Regulars
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gramlich

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/07/88

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Holden

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Maine
  • Chat Nick Gramlich
  • Relationship status Single
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Real Name Nicholas Gramlich
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • School or University University of Maine Orono

Recent Profile Visitors

2772 profile views
  1. There was a half Puerto Rican - half white guy at my high school who would cry "racist" every time he did poorly on a test. (His purpose for this was obvious: he didn't want to be responsible for his own failure. This was a private school, and he came from a cushy, well-off family.) Racism is so heavily ingrained in some people's minds that it's the only thing they can see. They can't comprehend the existence of a mind separate from their skin color, hair/eye color, facial structure, and/or body build. It's an assumption they can't afford to challenge because it would leave too much in their own hands, and they couldn't turn their brain off anymore to satisfy their blanket convictions. "Aristotle was white" doesn't just denote some minor fact about Aristotle. It means all whites are suddenly the equivalent of Aristotle and that, due to the immense achievement provided by this one white person, or the immense achievement of other white people, we should all just listen to white people because they're now the superior race. Also, as a side note, "white" is poor nomenclature for "Caucasians." Caucasians have a wide range of skin tones, some darker than some "blacks," or "Sub-Saharan Africans."
  2. Merriam-Webster gives the definition of intelligence as "1.a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) c : mental acuteness : shrewdness " The incorporation of free will into the concept of intelligence instead of the usual "dumb" deterministic view of it as a simple, flat quantity that you're born with doesn't dictate how much free will affects intelligence as such. However, if intelligence is as the definition states above, and I agree it is, and the use of one's mind and reason is a volitional activity, volition plays a pivotal role in the determination of intelligence. One's will would be the driving force of intelligence and the attribute which defines its function. Yet, when people speak of intelligence, they usually mean the comparative IQ standard. In which case, how much is a question of neuroscience. As per your second question, I think it would have been harder for her to stay rational in those abusive conditions and with a comparably lower IQ, whatever that means, but her rationality would still be up to her. I'm guessing it would be something like comparing Dagny to Cheryl. The rest of your questions are also based on neuroscience, which I don't know much about.
  3. I think the "come down to Earth" attitude may be different between your parents and Rand's example in the quote. A person can legitimately live in a fantasy world by not taking heed to the particular complexities of real life, or, as I think Eioul implied, it may just be your parents legitimately thinking that your worldview is unrealistic when it may be otherwise. Rand's example is in the context of a person directly addressing romantic art and trying to get a child to drop his interest in the idealized nature of it. The psychology behind this has already been explained in this thread. The critiquing individual is attempting to attack the ideals the child wishes to hold because they fear their own abandonment of those ideals. Also, I don't think outright laughter would be appropriate in this situation, mostly because of the complete lack of respect it implies for the mistaken valuer. That's why it would have to be "friendly or indifferent amusement." Although, outright laughter may just be a person with poor social understanding or a deeply cynical view of others. I think Rand was speaking of the general populace, though. As for your unrelated quote on fear, which probably isn't as unrelated as you think, I think you came closest with " If there is something that you think may elicit an emotion you need to fear it and find a way to avoid it." Repression is essentially emotional evasion. One attempts to pretend, either for the sake of one's own or another's mind, that one's subconscious isn't feeding certain data to one's consciousness. What must follow, then, since one has no real direct control over one's subconscious, is that any sort of emotional information the subconscious feeds to one's consciousness is potentially dangerous. Repression makes enemies of the two parts of a person's mind. The subconscious is told its very method of functioning is bad or evil, which leaves it lost - which leads to fear, and the conscious mind, as you also stated, isn't fed any personal information about oneself.
  4. You could read The Art of Non-Fiction, written by Rand, herself.
  5. Rock Lobster is the ballad of our ages. How dare you insult it's good name? You disgust me, sir.
  6. It's just short-hand for the law of non-contradiction.
  7. I never said it was "the only reason." It is a main reason for people targeting them, however. Most people who criticize business' collusion with the government do so on the grounds that you have the dirty profit seekers corrupting the otherwise pure egalitarians. And it's particularly the very successful companies collusion with the government that brings their ire the most, but this is a mixed economy, which makes success within it more dubious than a free-market. Judging the merits of a company on the grounds of "Did you have any dealings or manipulations with the government? Then you're bad." is the same as judging the merits of a person on the grounds of "Have you used any government aid or services? Then you're bad." Snap judgments aren't more acceptable because your target is a company instead of a single person or family. A company can still be fundamentally good and/or its owners a boon to a society while taking advantage of or being in collusion with the government. I think that's where Svanberg and Binswanger are coming from. I don't think they're conflating anything, just not making a distinction in their short articles. Of course, I don't know when one assumes a company is fundamentally evil or good. When I read Binswanger's piece, my first assumption was that he included Goldman Sachs for shock value. I don't know the man, though, and I don't know why he chooses to say everything he does. But I have enough respect for him not to assume he's an ingrate or a stray turd floating in the toilet bowl. So I find a lot of the hostility towards him unjustified.
  8. It's commonly assumed that all large businesses are large due to nefarious purposes. Even companies from the industrial age that had little collusion with government are assumed to be evil and exploitative for seeking profits and succeeding in the attainment of them. What the vast majority of people attack these days is the profit motive as such, that it's bad to want to make wealth. Even conservatives have a lot of trouble being comfortable with large businesses making large profits (You seem to, as well). But the profit motive is the cornerstone to the entire free-market. Professional Objectivists, and Rand, rightly focus on the profit motive as the main subject of defense and upholding, because it is the most fundamental point that is attacked most rigidly these days. The other many, many benefits of the free-market come after that principle's defense, particularly when addressing the mainstream.
  9. That's because big businesses are always targeted as evil simply because of their success. It's a point that almost no one makes other than Objectivists. There's nothing wrong with being large or successful. To think Objectivists never point out that the poor are hurt the most due to government intervention is fallacious. Rand, herself, pointed it out.
  10. Because romantic feelings imply they are a value of which you want to obtain. Them being with another person means they are "possessed" by another person, so they are not a value that is obtainable, at the moment at least. The pain you feel is from your realization that a value is unobtainable.
  11. This is just insulting, and you're insulting our intelligence. You're assuming the only reason Objectivists are supporting the right to self-defense is because it's American tradition and it's where we grew up, not because there's any actual logical argument behind it. For someone who goes on about how you have to be willing to consider divergent opinions, you certainly are unwilling to do just that, so you psychologize, instead. Patronizing.
  12. I voted for Romney. I'm not ashamed of my choice. Your supposed moral judgment means nothing to me.
  13. That's what I originally thought you were striking at because of how you phrased your previous statements. I can't stand submissive women, especially the ones that actually start sounding like children when they talk.
  14. Yea, that sounds like I'm taking care of a kid.