Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicko0301

Regulars
  • Content count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nicko0301

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 03/01/90

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    bulldognick5
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Miami, Fl

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. Is life truly the standard of value?

    Thank you for elucidating this subject for me. Your explanation was enormously helpful.
  2. Is life truly the standard of value?

    I never asserted that an action is moral because one has the desire to perform aforementioned action; please don't distort what I said. I simply wanted to explore why, given that life is what makes possible the concept of value, people purposely and consciously value things which are manifestly opposed to the furtherance and sustenance of life.
  3. Is life truly the standard of value?

    I just have one brief question concerning the subject of value. According to Objectivism, "An organism's life is the standard of value: that which which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." (OPAR pg. 212) Initially--after reading the arguments in support of this conclusion--I found this statement to be incontrovertible. However, after some deliberation, a question arose in my mind: If life is the standard of value, why do people often value things which are inimical to the preservation of life (e.g., drugs, alcohol, etc.)? It seems to me that many people often value things, not because they are conducive to the maintenance of life, but because they engender momentary pleasure (as in the case of drug addicts). Can anyone offer any insights? Does this in some way refute the Objectivist theory of value? As always, thanks in advance.
  4. If one billiard ball strikes another, what causes the subsequent movement of the struck billiard ball? I know that only entities act, but surely it wasn't the first billiard ball which engendered the motion of the second? Isn't the act of hitting the second billiard ball what causes the hit billiard ball to move?
  5. I was reading Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. In it, Russell intimated, with what seems to be disdain, that Aristotle's Logic, though seminal and admirable, is obsolete; and that one mustn't neglect recent advancements in aforesaid field. This prompted a bit of curiosity in me, for I am trying to learn how to reason properly. My question is this: What works do you feel are important in regard to Logic? And, incidentally, would you consider Aristoteleanism as antiquated? Thanks
  6. Books on the Law.

    Can anyone out there recommend a good book(s) on the history and development of the Law? It is a subject that I find completely interesting. Thanks
  7. Berkely's argument in support of God.

    Excuse me if this sounds foolish, but, in this context, what is the distinction between "proven" and "valid"?
  8. Berkely argued that "to be is to be perceived"; and that, when things are not so perceived, they continue to exist because God, being ubiquitous, perceives all that exists simultaneously. Firstly: What do you think of this argument? Secondly (and this is a question with which I have grappled for months): How do we know that things exist prior to perceiving them? How do we know that the act of perception does not somehow change the identity of things? Thanks in advance.
  9. Kant and group subjectivity

    I would never vote in favor of your execution, SoftwareNerd. I value the knowledge I can gather from you far too much.
  10. Kant and group subjectivity

    I see what you mean.
  11. Kant and group subjectivity

    I'm simply trying to understand Objectivism and philosophy in general. I don't know why you people have to make such inane comments. Honestly.
  12. Kant and group subjectivity

    I see you enjoy being an unsociable asshole. Nice to know!
  13. Kant and group subjectivity

    I actually have several posts. I didn't think it was necessary to start a new post when my question was germane to the current post; it would be superfluous.
  14. Kant and group subjectivity

    How may one go about disproving it? I've been contemplating Kant's system for a while, and, although many Objectivists affirm it's falsity, I still haven't arrived at a clear, unequivocal refutation of it. Any suggestions?
  15. Kant and group subjectivity

    Is that what you actually believe, or is that merely what Kant said?
×