Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Travis P.

Regulars
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Travis P.'s Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. A year or two ago someone made a reference to me about a lecture by Harry Binswanger (I think) that talked about how to read fiction so that you enjoy it and remember what you read. Apparently it involved, among other things, writing in the margins brief summaries of the plot of the chapter or the section that had just been read. Does anyone know what lecture this might refer to, or if it was even Harry Binswanger?
  2. Responding for myself since I believe I first brought up historical accuracy as an issue, I think you're missing the point. My point was not to criticize it for being innaccurate, but rather for claiming it had a relation to works of literature that were "pure fantasy" and then having really nothing to do with them. It makes no attempt to "base" its story on them, but it does try to show where the story got its ideas from, and does essentially claim that its the "real" version. For me, that's deceiving/frustrating. Maybe it would have been better, for me anyways, if they had simply given it another title, and not tried to smuggle in little "clever" bits about where the myth of the sword (for example) came from. I wanted it based on those works of literature, not some third rate modern telling of what "really" happened.
  3. Is this just flame bait? I hardly think it's worth answering.
  4. I won't speak for Mr. Speicher here, but I think its pretty clear that the "particles" (meaning matter) that compose the brain of a living human are just like the particles found inanimate objects. They are obviously just arranged differently. How else would you get life from non-life? Not by creating new particles, but by rearranging those that exist.
  5. But what you're talking about are principles of logic to guide your thinking. She was talking about the fundamental starting points, the "foundations of everything else". While the principles of logic are consistent with Ayn Rand's metaphysical axioms, and many of them may even directly "derive" from her axioms, they have two different goals. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. The "tautologies" you have mentioned are some basic principles to help guide a person in the use of logic. Before you talk about logic, however, you have to accept that existence exists. Do you see yet why they are separate things?
  6. I hate to disagree, but, the first law was: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." This permits no "sacrificing" of any individuals for others. Asimov actually thought that this was a flaw of the three laws, since the first law would protect individual humans only, and proposed a "law zero" which would say that the robots have to act in the best interest of "humanity". A quote from a third party, This never became a big part of any of the books in his series, though, from what I remember (a good thing). Asimov wasn't perfect, but the themes and ideas from his books would have been much better than this stuff. This movie was fun on an action level, but it had no resemblance to Asimov's books nor his ideas. Nor was it meant to be, as the movie was originally based on a different author who based his stuff off of Asimov, and then the studio bought rights to the name of Asimov's book. Asimov wanted, partially, to get rid of the fear of technology and to be an antidote against the common "Man creates machine, machine kills man, man should have known better" theme. Not only did the movie do nothing to bolster the case of those in favor of technology, but it hurt the case for technology even more (notice the subtle hit against the fear of nanotechnology - "robots creating robots - thats insane" or something like that). Then when you add in its attacks against "logic" (the only good robot was driven by emotions), I think you have a movie with a horrible theme. Can it be a fun movie? Sure. But that's all.
  7. For one thing, Hume's point, if I understand it correctly, was that certainty is impossible, not that uncertainty is possible. Betsy has added the fact to the problem of induction that you can be certain.
  8. While I think that chess can be a fun game, and I know one person who goes to professional tournaments, where is this "proof" that it improves thinking abilities? I would imagine it would to some extent, in light of the fact that you do have to think, but I'd be curious the extent it does this, for example compared with playing the violin.
  9. Well for one thing, most physicists won't even admit that they can predict the behaviour of particles not in the brain. I think they're probably wrong, but that's beyond this topic. Either way, currently, there is no evidence for what you propose. When (if) scientists discover what you propose, then we can talk about it, until then it's just imagination.
  10. I'm not sure that I understand this point. I agree that nothing cannot actually exist. But surely we can find in space, in our "coordinate system," areas where there are no things, where it is empty? The area exists, in terms of being in a certain position in relation to other "areas," but no existents are inside the area.
  11. If you want to be annoying (I say leave your parents be), ask her what she would lose by being a good Islamic fundamentalist? After all, if we're to choose a religion "just in case", that is as good as any. And if you choose the wrong one... well you're going to hell depending on how nice the "real" god is.
  12. Odd that a socialist would write a pro-capitalist book. Look, 1984 can be an enjoyable book, but it is definitely not an anti-socialist or anti-collectivist book. Orwell understood some basic faults of Communism, but not the roots of the faults. It's easier to see where Orwell went wrong in Animal Farm, because that book is more obviously attacking what went on in Russia. In it, he clearly has sympathy for the ideas that led to the revolution, but disagreed with the way things happened. Some of this is there, but more subtle in 1984. It's interesting to note that so many leftists have used 1984 to make arguments against capitalism (ie. invasion of privacy, control of information, war leading to profit, etc.). Most capitalists would argue that they are wrong, that Orwell meant such and such. But there's really nothing in the novel to suggest that he actually favors capitalism. He might conceed it's better than the society of 1984, but I doubt Orwell would promote capitalism above standard European Socialism.
  13. If I had chosen to believe in God after reading the story, I logically would have had to reject much of Objectivism, and therefore wouldn't be here in this forum. My presence here should indicate how much it made me believe in God . In my opinion (I read it about a year ago I think) it wasn't very good in terms of theme or keeping my interest. There is much better literature available than this stuff.
  14. I believe the ability to be called back up (the way they are doing it now) is part of the voluntary contract you sign when you join. Nothing scary or worrisome about that.
×
×
  • Create New...