Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dream_weaver last won the day on August 31

dream_weaver had the most liked content!

About dream_weaver

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

36474 profile views
  1. Standard of Value - Life, Posterity, Legacy

    Apply the law of identity. It is man's life, that is being identified. The identity for a class is the same across the board. "There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value."1 Morality is about what is proper to man to live. Any man in particular, all men in general, either of his own identification of the moral tenants, or via those who make life possible, even to those who may default on their responsibility. "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."1 Again, the good and evil are assessed as being proper to the life of any particular rational being, or all rational beings in general. "Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason."1 Reason is the one price that pays for man's survival, whether paid for by the particular man, or by some other man at large. "Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose."1 The standard of morality is identified by the nature or identity of the general type or class, while the purposes are chosen by the individual particulars. So if any particular individual has an allergy to seafood, just as any general individual may have such an allergy, in general, those individuals should avoid seafood as part of their particular diets. 1. Atlas Shrugged, pg. 932; For The New Intellectual, pg. 122; Philosophy" Who Needs It?, pg. 74.
  2. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    In a sense, as popular/unpopular is being used here, yes. But unknown carries deeper implications, that make the application of popular/unpopular more difficult. There are yet discoveries that have not been made. Would it be proper to say the undiscovered is popular or unpopular, or would it just be the case that the undiscovered is simply just still unknown? Granted, Objectivism has been discovered, but are its "mysteries" known, or do they still lurk about in the unknown?
  3. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    On a slightly different tact, some are drawn by Rand's combative style. In martial arts training, a good sensei stresses that the art is more than just learning how to fight. One also needs to become the best that one can become. Not just the best fighter, but to excel at any undertaking that is worth undertaking. Very Francisco-like. Whatever he did, he did superlatively well. Whatever he applied himself to, he did with the intention to succeed. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing as well as can be done withing the capacity of the doer. Rand puts forth, even if in a combative style at times, effective argumentation. Individuals who read one of her books and get the sense that she has something worthwhile. As human beings, the individual may evaluate others by the conclusions they have drawn about themselves. So if they read Atlas Shrugged and understand part of the essence of her novel, it can be bewildering why it is not as obvious to others as it was to themselves. "After all," they think, "I can understand this, I'm a human being, therefore other human beings should be able to understand this." (And others do, in varying degrees.) The fight, however, is not primarily with persuading others of the rightness of her ideas. The real struggle is coming to understand what is objectively right—for oneself—and once discovering it, not to relinquish it under any circumstances. A gauge I've used for years in the preparation of blueprints, is to evaluate the questions that came back regarding the blueprint itself. Was there an omission on my behalf, a missing section, a missing view, a missing dimension, etc.? If so, the section, view, or dimension is added, making the blueprint a clearer reference. Other times, a question raised indicated where the blueprint reader was deficient in that capacity, so the explanation is not about the particular blueprint in question as much as how to read a blueprint in general. In the light of the thread topic, I'm not convinced that Objectivism is unpopular, rather, like the politics it advocates, Capitalism, it is still an unknown ideal.
  4. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    This is too good to be buried in this thread. It has been moved to Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures>Nonfiction
  5. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Using the scholastic approach that I do within this subject (Objectivism, in general) here's what I found on "abstractions as such do not exist": From Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Appendix—The Role of Words the fact that Aristotle is right and not Plato is very relevant here: abstractions, as such, do not exist. Only concretes exist. We could not deal with a sum of concrete objects constantly without losing our grasp of them. But what do we do conceptually? We substitute a concrete—a visual or auditory concrete—for the unlimited, open-ended number of concretes which that new concrete subsumes. Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Chapter 12—Art By converting abstractions into percepts, art performs another crucial (and inseparable) function. It not only integrates metaphysics, but also objectifies it. This means: it enables man to contemplate his view of the world in the form of an existential object—to contemplate it not as a content of his consciousness, but "out there," as an external fact. Since abstractions as such do not exist, there is no other way to make one's metaphysical abstractions fully real to oneself (or, therefore, fully operative as one's guide). "To acquire the full, persuasive, irresistible power of reality," Miss Rand writes, "man's metaphysical abstractions have to confront him in the form of concretes—i.e., in the form of art." The Objectivist Newsletter: Vol. 4 No. 4 April, 1965 Check Your Premises: The Psycho-Epistemology of Art By Ayn Rand and/or The Romanic Manifesto 1. The Psycho-Epistemology of Art The existential consequences, of course, will differ. Amidst the incalculable number and complexity of choices that confront a man in his day—by-day existence, with the frequently bewildering torrent of events, with the alternation of successes and failures, of joys that seem too rare and suffering that lasts too long-he is often in danger of losing his perspective and the reality of his own convictions. Remember that abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists-and that which exists is concrete. To acquire the full, persuasive, irresistible power of reality, man's metaphysical abstractions have to confront him in the form of concretes-i.e., in the form of art. The Objectivist—March 1966 Art And Sense Of Life By Ayn Rand "Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete. To acquire the full, persuasive, irresistible power of reality, man's metaphysical abstractions have to confront him in the form of concretes—i.e., in the form of art." ("The Psycho-Epistemology of Art.") So when you ask, shouldn't the answer be: "As objectively as can be mustered."?
  6. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    Does existence depend on a specific course of action in order to continue to exist [i.e.: in order to remain in existence? The tangent is firmly in the province of the man-made. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. Or is this another way of saying existence cannot cease to act, i.e.; the law of causality cannot cease to be the law of identity applied to action? Or: an axiom (or one of it's corollaries) has to be invoked in order to try to deny said axiom (or one of it's corollaries)?
  7. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I searched on a partial quote from the earlier omission, and they not come up in those sections on the CD. It is interesting to note that even after things have been edited, the historic sequence was able to be brought into light.
  8. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    A fact. A fact that obtains (is gotten, is acquired, grasped, realized, procured, understood) "by necessity" is [a fact] that obtains (is gotten, is acquired, grasped, realized, procured, understood) "by identity."
  9. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    @Easy Truth Another paragraph from page 24 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand A fact is "necessary" if its nonexistence would involve a contradiction. To put the point positively: a fact that obtains "by necessity" is one that obtains "by identity." Given the nature of existence, this is the status of every (metaphysically given) fact. Nothing more is required to ground necessity. Between StrictlyLogical's concrete example (delivered via abstractions [here]) and Grames raising the fact that abstractions are man-made [here], parsing the man-made linguistic expressions for their corresponding concrete counterparts, you might benefit from reviewing or familiarizing yourself with "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It? or The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 12 & 13, as an additional sidebar. Incidentally, I think the citation I provided essentially restates StrictlyLogical's point, only much more abstractly.
  10. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    Thanks for filling in the blanks. I heard the hard edits in the audio track and thought the resulting sentence looks malformed. That explains it well enough for me.
  11. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I think there's an extraneous word in the first line, but that is stated more succinctly than how I've been struggling to articulate it.
  12. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    Some of the sentiment about how Rand possibly viewed the reception of her work may be inferred from this take out of For The New Intellectual: The best among the present intellectuals should consider the tremendous power which they are holding, but have never fully exercised or understood. If any man among them feels that he is the helpless, ineffectual stepson of a "materialistic'' culture that grants him neither wealth nor recognition, let him remember the meaning of his title: his power is his intellect not his feelings, emotions or intuitions. Easily implied from this is the recognition the she had these feelings, emotions or intuitions, but deferred them to the intellect.
  13. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    At which point you should be/are back to the basic expression: The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. To quibble here is to isolate "only the glass can break the glass". I would leave it as "only the glass can break". Hopefully this helps clarify the question you began with. Otherwise you will be left with the question you began with.
  14. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    To stay true to form, if you read between the lines, that should be structured as: To confirm, there was no causal relationship between him and the glass breaking. Let's not quibble about the spaces between the letters.
  15. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    Yes. He was administered several stitches in his throwing arm, after the medical team removed a shard of the former window pane from the wound.