Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

patrik 7-2321

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About patrik 7-2321

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  1. See if you find something at ARI campus that you like, to start you off (awesome site): https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-courses For reading I'd say start by reading these essays by Rand (lots of choices here but these are good): "Philosophy: who needs it": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1974/03/01/philosophy-who-needs-it/page1 "Faith and force: the destroyers of the modern world": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/faith-and-force-the-destroyers-of-the-modern-world "The Objectivist Ethics": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page1 "Causality versus duty": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1970/01/01/causality-versus-duty "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-conflicts-of-mens-interests I also highly suggest reading these books (after Rand's essays leave you wanting more elaboration and proof): (OPAR was already suggested) How We Know, by Harry Binswanger: http://www.how-we-know.com/ Viable Values, by Tara Smith: http://a.co/cErz41u Moral Rights and Political Freedom, also Tara Smith: http://a.co/8bMPTJQ
  2. So there was a guy in academic epistemology who allegedly turned the whole field upside down in the 1900's, by proving that having Justified True Belief in an idea is insufficient for having knowledge of said idea. Read up if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem https://books.google.se/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=Gp9Umi2VEh8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=Is+Justified+True+Belief+Knowledge%3F&ots=OGD1Xq6SY1&sig=qfXz6_nL9-_008Z6WmjehU7cKFU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Is Justified True Belief Knowledge%3F&f=false How I would sum it up: Gettier provided some examples where an individual S deduces an idea Q which happens to be True, but the reasoning is based on a false premise P, which nonetheless is rationally Justified. Thus the individual does not know that the idea Q is true, and does not have knowledge of Q, but still Believes the idea. Thus it is claimed that S has Justified True Belief in something which is not knowledge, and JTB is an insufficient condition for knowledge. The whole thing bothers me and I'm trying to figure out why. Is this an attempt at proving that knowledge is impossible, or can it actually make rational sense within objectivist epistemology? What to make of it all?
  3. Reason and moral code

    Mike you seem to have the wrong concept of "reality". Ayn Rand once said something like "There is only one reality. Not two, nor four, nor ten".
  4. Objectivism Textbook?

    I think the closest you will come is the book Understanding Objectivism, by Peikoff and Michael Berliner. Here you will be shown how to validate 4 principles of Objectivism, the purpose of which is to teach you the method of validating the whole philosophy for yourself. That's one half of the book, later there is one chapter explaining the hierarchy of Objectivism, followed by a few chapters on epistemology, and then emotions and moral judgement. The whole style of writing and argumentation is also different from OPAR.
  5. I decided to buy this book as an introduction to economics, mainly because John Lewis from ARI recommended it. Amazon: http://www.amazon.co...35291780&sr=1-1 Book webpage: http://objectiveeconomics.net/ Being new to economics I like the book so far, but then I saw this review by the Objective standard: http://www.theobject...up-buechner.asp And then there were some controversy online over this quote from page 1, (the preface): "To the best of my knowledge, this book represents the first attempt to rewrite economics in the light of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism." - Which is claimed by some to be a dishonest statement and an insult to a "George Reisman" (whom I know nothing about) who has previosly written a book on economics with an Objectivist theme. What to make of it? Should this criticism cast doubt on the value of the content of this book? I'd like to hear what you economically literate think about it.
  6. What is, and is not, an Objectivist?

    I don't think this comes off as troll-ish at all. Here's Peikoff's answer: Podcast from June 30th, 2008
  7. The best resources for studying logic

    I'm happy with my logic book, which is Logc: An Introduction, by Lionel Ruby. Prior to reading (half of) it I had no previous expreience with logic as a subject, and this one has been good for me. You can find Harry Binswangers endorsment of this book via google. Basically he recommends that Objectivists buy it but ignore some select parts.
  8. Questioning the beneficiary of value

    I think he meant "the morality which he enacts", rather than "morality as such".
  9. Questioning the beneficiary of value

    Seems like this question comes up because you don't know the validation of the standard of the good. You are in effect asking why your self-interest is what Objectivism says, and not more dependant on other people's well being. In OTI (Objectivism through induction) the validation of the Objectivist concept of self-interest is outlined like this: You choose values. You achieve values. The commong denominator among basic values recognized by common sense as "good" for a person defines self interest. In contrast: altruism is not in your self interest because it contradicts the nature of values (it says you can't value) and it contradicts itself (it says you should pursue values for others). In this context the question of this thread has an almost self-evident answer: "Just look at what values are and what is really good for a person". What I personally find interesting about this is that the formation of the mere concept "self-interest", quickly followed by "egoism" (as the practice of acting for one's self interest), actually holds the proof of the basics of the Objectivist ethics.
  10. Ayn rand study guide

    Among the first hits on google are: http://www.meetup.com/aynrand-200/messages/boards/thread/10277265/0 http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=268 Assuming you've looked at those, what are else are you looking for in a study guide? I own the ARI-printed study guide to OPAR and it's also just a bunch of questions.
  11. Americans: Are you proud to be an American?

    Reading this I immediately thought that in some contexts such pride can be proper. In the sense that you can be proud of upholding and defending the values a group you independently judge to be morally right. ObjectivistAnswers.com agrees with me: http://objectivistan...y-and-ancestors
  12. Reason as man's means of survival

    lol, yeah.
  13. Reason as man's means of survival

    I think this discussion took a rationalistic turn. It did for me at least. So I want to bring this discussion back to the beginning with a more inductive approach. I have solved it. Man must produce, because in the context of comparing to animals attaining values, the unique action taken by men is production. That is therfore the cause of attinment of human values. My question at first was "But how do you deal with a person who steals? How does he fit into this?", and later it also became "How do you deal with a beggar, or a moocher? He who tries to get things without either producing OR stealing?". I didn't realize first that the coontrast with animals actually solves these problems. The theif/looter is properly dealt with by dismissal; by realizing that whatever he does is causally irrelevant - because he acts like an animal! Thus whatever he can get by his own accord, 'long range' if we assume a principled manner of living, is what an animal gets. One can therfore see that he attains his values by some means other than himself or his own actions, by the mercy of womever person he steals from. i.e. he is not engaging in a method of survival. A "moocher" is likewise irrelevant, but his actions are irrelevant not merly because he's unproductive, but because he's also ineffective. A beggar doesn't even give the appearance of successful living. Thus the principle I talked about in the beginning is certainly not arbitrary. The reason why production is "long-range" I have understood is also based on the contrast, and is primarily because we are talking about principled behaviour. Nevermind that typical thieves get into trouble, they don't even on principle enact the cause which would get them values. So why would one assume they could achieve values over the course of years or decades? If they seem to do it, it's not because of their own actions, but because of something else; someone elses production and mercy at their behaviour. So that's it. I'd like to hear your comments.
  14. That last post made me lose hope in this guy but I'd already written this, so let this be my last statement. No, not nessecarily. They are activities which can be pursued either productively or for leisure. I agree he does not need to earn money. But he needs to produce in the sense of applying reason to the problem of survival, which has a broader meaning. So AS has sold ~3,660,000 copies. If we assume only a couple of thousand accepted the philosophy after reading AS, what will that prove? That Objectivism is false because if it were true then it would spread quickly? You might aswell use that same argument and say that since christianity spread quickly it must be true, and since X spread slowly it must be false. It's obviously the case that you are unsure whether Objectivism is correct or not, and are trying to use this "track record" or "conversion rate" or whatever to decide whether it is worth your time or not, because then it will be "more likely true" or not. But that is the wrong method. Look at it and read about it and try to decide for yourself, ask specific questions on this forum and try to make up your mind that way instead. It's a totally useless way of going about philosophy, because you can't avoid the task of thinking yourself.
  15. In response to MarcT: 1. I have struggled with this personally; the argument for why man has to be productive. I believe I have understood it, and will be updating my previous thread called "Reason as man's means of survival", which you may want to read. The reason why a rich heir has to be productive is primarily psychological, for various reasons regarding human nature. For one thing: Mr. Bob cannot attain happines by simply "aiming directly at it", as a floating abstraction denoting pleasant feelings and memories of happiness in the past. It is a principle of Objectivism that spiritual values only can be achieved through material means. If this individual wants pride and self-esteem (and be happy and live a worthy life) he must experience himself being good and efficacious at something materially, as being able to sustain himself, whether that is through playing some sport, or computer games, or create art, organize parties, learn and teach advanced knowledge. Even though he doesn't need any more material wealth, he must continually face creative challenges and find ways of solving them, and in doing so he is productive. Otherwise boredom and lack of confidence, unhappiness, would result. (In answering this I have made use of Tara Smith's ARNE). 2. Has been adequately answered. I'd say Objectivism is doing remarkably well for being so new and at the same time so radical. Great ideas take time to spread if they contradict people's previously held ideas, because that means it takes a huge amount of time for each individual to decide the truth of what is presented. Don't know why chistianity spread faster though, if indeed that historical claim is correct. 3. Ehm, public education has been enforcing non-Objectivist ideas on people for several generations now. Prior to that there was the religious institutions who did the job. The market of ideas is thus not fair. This seems to imply that anything a person does is productive, if he chooses it. Certainly one is not reshaping matter into something valuable while "lying around doing nothing", or while traveling around and giving away stuff for free. I would say the concept is not that broad.